Proof Neandertals and humans interbred:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is a line Fabian between goading and becoming personal, I dont mind insults as long as they are not personal insults. With Hinds one simply has to acknowledge that sometimes no amount of reasoning will penetrate.

I dont mind insults as long as they are not personal insults.

So do you mind RJHinds's personal insults?

With Hinds one simply has to acknowledge that sometimes no amount of reasoning will penetrate

I am glad you acknowledge that reason cannot 'penetrate' him -he sure hates reason.

Originally posted by humy

I dont mind insults as long as they are not personal insults.

So why don't you mind RJHinds's personal insults? -oh, let me guess -because his insults are directed against us scientists/scientifically minded and not you and because his insults are anti-atheist.

My dear Sir, nothing could be further from the truth, you must understand that his insults are not a reflection of you, but of himself!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My dear Sir, nothing could be further from the truth, you must understand that his insults are not a reflection of you, but of himself!

I am glad you corrected me 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
Or do you have any other reason to think that life is designed by an intelligence?

I don't think he can answer this question without any religious reasoning.

Scientifically speaking, there are no intelligent designers of life and cosmos.

Originally posted by C Hess
Not to insult, but you appear intellectually challenged. Knowing that, do you still think that because things appear a certain way, that therefore they necessarily are? Or do you have any other reason to think that life is designed by an intelligence?

Of course, if indeed you are lacking intellectual prowess, I most sincerely apologise.

Maybe we are all intellectually challenged, otherwise, your evolutionist scientists would have shown how random chance made life forms and how they changed rather than just speculate on how it might have happened.

I have seen magic tricks and know that some things are not always as they appear. But I need logical reasons to believe that evolution can do magic.

When I see organization, integrated complexity, and formation of things for a purpose that remind me of what man does by intelligent thinking and planning, then I obviously think of an intelligent mind behind it. For example, Bill Gates, of Microsoft, said that the programming in the DNA molecule was much more complex than anything man has done. This leads me to believe an intelligent mind greater than man must have designed and programmed it.

It also appears that most, if not all, life forms are unique and purposefully designed. Each life form appears designed to play a distinct role and not that of another. This would also explain why intermediary fossils are not found. Sea creatures did not evolve into land creatures, therefore, there are no intermediary fossils.

As i mentioned before, evolution just does not make sense when it comes to metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly. Preplanning and programming by an intelligent designer makes more sense to me.

The fact that some creatures appear similar to others, simply means that the same building blocks were used in the design by the same builder or builders. What is the need for evolution when the ability to adapt to the environment is obviously programmed into the original forms.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe we are all intellectually challenged, otherwise, your evolutionist scientists would have shown how random chance made life forms and how they changed rather than just speculate on how it might have happened.

I have seen magic tricks and know that some things are not always as they appear. But I need logical reasons to believe that evolution can do ...[text shortened]... on when the ability to adapt to the environment is obviously programmed into the original forms.

Maybe we are all intellectually challenged indeed.

It's not random chance that drives evolution, it's natural selection on random mutations.

I also would need logical reasons to believe evolution can do magic. I think there's
something about the evolutionary process you're missing, if you think speciation through
natural selection on random mutations require the use of magical incantations.

When Bill Gates says that DNA is like a computer program but far more advanced
(assuming that's what you're talking about) he's in fact wrong, in much the same way that
prominent creationists are often wrong when they refer to DNA as coded information. It's
not coded information in the same way that this post of text is, but four distinct molecular
structures combined in different ways. That's the equivalent of a four letter alphabet. Try
and convey intellectual information with just four letters in various combinations. The
complexity of DNA lies in its' convolution, the sheer number of codons, but the basics of it
is simple, as you'd expect from something that arose through natural processes.

To say that something appears to be designed to play a distinct role, is to see purpose
where none need exist. The fact that those genetic combinations that doesn't compete well
in a given environment dies out (natural selection), means that the ones that do survive, do
so specifically because they function well with their surrounding environment, appearing to
be designed for a distinct role in nature.

Every fossil is an intermediary fossil.

The caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis (though the details of when and how it evolved
is not fully understood yet) is not this great mystery you seem to think it is.

The idea that the same building blocks were used, and that this is why we see similarities
between different species' DNA, fail to account for the fact that it's not just the same
building blocks (in anything but the most basic level). The DNA of you and me are very
similar to that of a chimpanzee, but not as similar to the gorilla. When we look at
similarities in DNA between different species, we can't avoid but see that it resembles a
tree, and that tree matches surprisingly well with the one we get when we look at feature
similarities between fossils placed in chronological order. Is it just a coincidence that all
this evidence just happen to support the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by C Hess
Maybe we are all intellectually challenged indeed.

It's not random chance that drives evolution, it's natural selection on random mutations.

I also would need logical reasons to believe evolution can do magic. I think there's
something about the evolutionary process you're missing, if you think speciation through
natural selection on random mutation ...[text shortened]... s it just a coincidence that all
this evidence just happen to support the theory of evolution?

Hey Hess, just an aside, you seem to have been very active for a few months in 06, then nothing. What happened? I saw all those timeout games, you in school or something? Are you going to play games again?

Originally posted by C Hess
Maybe we are all intellectually challenged indeed.

It's not random chance that drives evolution, it's natural selection on random mutations.

I also would need logical reasons to believe evolution can do magic. I think there's
something about the evolutionary process you're missing, if you think speciation through
natural selection on random mutation ...[text shortened]... s it just a coincidence that all
this evidence just happen to support the theory of evolution?

Evolutionist have put fossils in a so-called chronological order to appear to support evoution on purpose. They continue to push fossil frauds, like those ape to man frauds they did in the past and they are very slow to correct evolution fraud in the textbooks.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionist have put fossils in a so-called chronological order to appear to support evoution on purpose. They continue to push fossil frauds, like those ape to man frauds they did in the past and they are very slow to correct evolution fraud in the textbooks.

If you don't understand evolution, then why not just say so, instead of showing it so clearly?

You clearly have to learn a bit more before you try to debate the subject.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you don't understand evolution, then why not just say so, instead of showing it so clearly?

You clearly have to learn a bit more before you try to debate the subject.

Alzheimer may be talking again.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Alzheimer may be talking again.

I'm afraid so. You will never get well from it. What does your doctor say?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hey Hess, just an aside, you seem to have been very active for a few months in 06, then nothing. What happened? I saw all those timeout games, you in school or something? Are you going to play games again?

I had a lot going on in my life at the time, and little time to spare for chess, so I stopped playing. Just days ago I felt the urge to play and remembered this site, so here I am. 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionist have put fossils in a so-called chronological order to appear to support evoution on purpose. They continue to push fossil frauds, like those ape to man frauds they did in the past and they are very slow to correct evolution fraud in the textbooks.

I'm curious, is there any button I can click to mark a comment as complete nonsense? 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm curious, is there any button I can click to mark a comment as complete nonsense? 😕

All I see is the thumbs up and thumbs down buttons that are to the right of the post.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All I see is the thumbs up and thumbs down buttons that are to the right of the post.

You didn't get the part about just which nonsense post it was?