Problems with RJ Hinds:

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong. And not science, or science related.

Science vs religion and atheism are SPIRITUALITY forum topics.

Not science forum topics.

So To the Mods.

Boot this creationist the hell out of science.

Permentently

Creation and evolution are the two main points of view that have been presented in science for the origins and varieties in species. Evolutionists have actually given up on the origins portion because science has already proven that part of their theory as incorrect and impossible.

There are still many problems with their branching tree of life idea that I am helping solve in the Science Forum. Just because my view is a minority view does not mean I should be censored, because in the past the minority view has proven by science to be the more correct view.

Just because some, like you, in the Science Forum BELIEVE they know what is science and what is not science does not make them correct. Anyway, the Science Forum is a better place to discuss and debate science related matters than the Spirituality Forum.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Anyway, the Science Forum is a better place to discuss and debate science related matters than the Spirituality Forum.

Oh I think the Sin of Onin could be safely referred back to Spirituality.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creation and evolution are the two main points of view that have been presented in science for the origins and varieties in species. Evolutionists have actually given up on the origins portion because science has already proven that part of their theory as incorrect and impossible.

It's still very correct to talk about the origins of species in evolution. It just was never meant in the way you seem to think.

Originally posted by C Hess
It's still very correct to talk about the origins of species in evolution. It just was never meant in the way you seem to think.

It is others that say the theory of evolution has nothing to do with origins. Darwin thought it might in his day. However, the law of biogenesis has caused most evolutionists to back out of discussing origins anymore.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is others that say the theory of evolution has nothing to do with origins. Darwin thought it might in his day. However, the law of biogenesis has caused most evolutionists to back out of discussing origins anymore.

Darwin talked about the origin of species, not the origin of life. It's true that he
envisioned some primordial soup (warm little pond) in which the first form of life could
have existed, but I don't believe he ever tried to explain exactly how the first life came to be.
If he did, I sure missed it.

In fact, when I think about, it seems to me that he purposefully avoided talking about the
origin of life in his theory of evolution, for obvious reasons I should think.

Originally posted by C Hess
Darwin talked about the origin of species, not the origin of life. It's true that he
envisioned some primordial soup (warm little pond) in which the first form of life could
have existed, but I don't believe he ever tried to explain exactly how the first life came to be.
If he did, I sure missed it.

In fact, when I think about, it seems to me ...[text shortened]... lking about the
origin of life in his theory of evolution, for obvious reasons I should think.

Darwin only stated that his theory was that all life came from a common ancestor, but that is still yet to be proven. It was others that saw that his theory was totally inadequate if there was no explanation of how that first ancestor came into being. They tried to put Darwin's envisioned primordial soup into action, but failed. And the law of biogenesis destroyed that idea.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin only stated that his theory was that all life came from a common ancestor, but that is still yet to be proven. It was others that saw that his theory was totally inadequate if there was no explanation of how that first ancestor came into being. They tried to put Darwin's envisioned primordial soup into action, but failed. And the law of biogenesis destroyed that idea.

As regards identifying common ancestors, The Ancestors Tale covers this fairly well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale

The origin of species refers to the process by which different species emerged over time. It does not require an original species to be identified - it only requires evidence that one existed.

Originally posted by finnegan
As regards identifying common ancestors, The Ancestors Tale covers this fairly well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale

The origin of species refers to the process by which different species emerged over time. It does not require an original species to be identified - it only requires evidence that one existed.

There is no evidence that ONE COMMON ANCESTOR existed. The only evidence we have is that MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES existed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no evidence that ONE COMMON ANCESTOR existed. The only evidence we have is that MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES existed.

Now you say that Adam&Eve is not our common ancestor! Meaning that the Genesis is wrong!

Well done! Good boy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin only stated that his theory was that all life came from a common ancestor, but that is still yet to be proven. It was others that saw that his theory was totally inadequate if there was no explanation of how that first ancestor came into being. They tried to put Darwin's envisioned primordial soup into action, but failed. And the law of biogenesis destroyed that idea.

Well, there you go. Evolution was never about origin of life. And abiogenesis is the most
active, I believe, model being worked on to explain the origin of life. I'm glad we've settled
that, so now we'll never see you write anything to that effect again. This is progress.

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, there you go. Evolution was never about origin of life. And abiogenesis is the most
active, I believe, model being worked on to explain the origin of life. I'm glad we've settled
that, so now we'll never see you write anything to that effect again. This is progress.

I believe in the Law of Biogenesis, which you both should know is the opposite of abiogenesis, unless you and your buddy, FabianFnas, are the dumbess men in all of Europe.

Did you look at that video that sonship told you about? However, I doubt if you could understand it anyway.

Originally posted by RJHinds
you and your buddy, FabianFnas, are the dumbess men in all of Europe.

Says a YEC creationist who even cannot spell in his own native language.

"Dumbess" ? 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe in the Law of Biogenesis, which you both should know is the opposite of abiogenesis, unless you and your buddy, FabianFnas, are the dumbess men in all of Europe.

Did you look at that video that sonship told you about? However, I doubt if you could understand it anyway.

Biogenesis (part of cell theory) supports evolution, "dumbess". 🙄

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Says a YEC creationist who even cannot spell in his own native language.

"Dumbess" ? 😀

Dumbess

A teenager, usually in high school, that is really dumb and acts like an 8th grade dumb whore.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dumbess