Originally posted by RJHindsWell neither one of us will be going to our enemy's camp so I don't know. I hope the evolution museum makes enough money to help pay for the legal battles going on to defeat evolution and foist creationism into science classes.
I doubt if they make any money. How much money do you think they make on those evolution museum scams?
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy Evolution is True and Why Many People Still Don't Believe
Richard Dawkins: Darwinism has failed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10suBDVE4Y
I haven’t bothered to look at it, but if it can shut up RJHinds for an hour and eight minutes, then it's worth it.
And remember, because this youtube is longer than RJhinds, then it must be truer, right?
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziGreat analogy! Don't you just love the way he continues to bring up the 19th century hoaxes like Plltdown man? At least 3 times I know of. Like, ok, THAT is the death knell of evolution....
of course bloody darwinism has flaws. it is a 100 year old +theory. the theory has improved since then.
we do not have darwinism, we have the theory of evolution. to bash evolution by taking a swing at darwinism is like bashing chemistry by taking a swing at alchemy
RJ is clearly lying low, he is continuing to make moves in his games but not making moves in his game here.
Originally posted by FabianFnaswe have solid evidence there was no global flood. all science contradicts it. we have no evidence that the burning bush did not exist. or did exist.
Everyone knows the Piltdown man was a scam. So does scientists.
Everyone knows that there were no global flooding. So should RJHinds.
Everyone knows that there were no garden of Eden. So should RJHinds.
Everyone knows that there were no burning bush. So should RJHinds.
yes, from a scientific point of view, if there is no proof, it doesn't exist. just like we say unicorns don't exist even if there is no proof to deny their existence.
so let's not say with certainty it didn't exist without any proof to deny that possibility. agnosticism is the better stance.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou are agnostic when it comes to Piltdown man?
we have solid evidence there was no global flood. all science contradicts it. we have no evidence that the burning bush did not exist. or did exist.
yes, from a scientific point of view, if there is no proof, it doesn't exist. just like we say unicorns don't exist even if there is no proof to deny their existence.
so let's not say with certainty it didn't exist without any proof to deny that possibility. agnosticism is the better stance.
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot all science contradicts a global flood. Most science simply has nothing to do with it.
we have solid evidence there was no global flood. all science contradicts it. we have no evidence that the burning bush did not exist. or did exist.
yes, from a scientific point of view, if there is no proof, it doesn't exist. just like we say unicorns don't exist even if there is no proof to deny their existence.
However, science and history do contradict both the burning bush and unicorns - its not just mere lack of evidence against those concepts that gives us reason to deny their existence. And no, agnosticism is no the better stance.
Originally posted by twhiteheaddo you insist on contradicting me just for fun?
Not all science contradicts a global flood. Most science simply has nothing to do with it.
However, science and history do contradict both the burning bush and unicorns - its not just mere lack of evidence against those concepts that gives us reason to deny their existence. And no, agnosticism is no the better stance.
there is scientific evidence to contradict a talking bush that might be god, but not all science contradicts a global flood? are you trolling me for a response?
if you have no evidence to support something, you say "i don't know". not "there is no such thing, period". that's what all people do, except people of faith. and hardcore atheists.