1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 Jun '14 08:25
    QUESTION EVOLUTION

    YouTube
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    01 Jun '14 13:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    QUESTION EVOLUTION

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohp4dmkOmKE
    Question RJ Hinds.
  3. Joined
    30 Sep '12
    Moves
    731
    02 Jun '14 00:46
    I just looked at this link from my Net home page. RJ, if you've got a few minutes, give it a read.

    http://news.yahoo.com/creationist-tall-tales-human-tails-050431615--politics.html
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    02 Jun '14 02:551 edit
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
    I just looked at this link from my Net home page. RJ, if you've got a few minutes, give it a read.

    http://news.yahoo.com/creationist-tall-tales-human-tails-050431615--politics.html
    You have to be careful of the evolutionists since they have put forward much misleading and fraudulent material in the past. If you have time take a look at this:

    Human Tail: Evidence For Evolution?

    YouTube

    Vestigial Organs: Am I Half Junk?

    YouTube

    DON'T TOUCH MY VESTIGIAL ORGAN

    YouTube

    Evolution: Vestigial Organs - What You WON'T Learn in Public School

    YouTube

    Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs by Dr. David DeWitt

    https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/setting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    02 Jun '14 03:21
    chromosome # 2 Ken Miller Vs Ian Juby's

    YouTube

    CHROMOSOME 2 EVIDENCE DISINTEGRATING

    YouTube
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    02 Jun '14 16:37
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    chromosome # 2 Ken Miller Vs Ian Juby's

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQWtQYT7MVI

    CHROMOSOME 2 EVIDENCE DISINTEGRATING

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lVJauZ96Tw
    Some of these folks have valid Phd's but that does not mean they are doing real science since they come into the study with the agenda of proving creationism correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of creationism.

    That is not science. Again, that is politics.

    They are not after the truth. They are after political power to force creationism to be taught in a science class as if creationism were a science which is far far from ANY scientific study.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    02 Jun '14 19:441 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Some of these folks have valid Phd's but that does not mean they are doing real science since they come into the study with the agenda of proving creationism correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of creationism.

    That is not science. Again, that is politics.

    They are ...[text shortened]... in a science class as if creationism were a science which is far far from ANY scientific study.
    It appears to me that most scientists come into the study with the agenda of proving evolution correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of evolution.

    Evolutionists are continually using their political power to ban the teaching of any problem with the evolution theory or the teaching of an alternate theory in science classes. It is becoming more clear that the theory of evolution is based on a belief system and not real science.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    02 Jun '14 20:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It appears to me that most scientists come into the study with the agenda of proving evolution correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of evolution.

    Evolutionists are continually using their political power to ban the teaching of any problem with the evolution theory or th ...[text shortened]... coming more clear that the theory of evolution is based on a belief system and not real science.
    What it appears to you and what it appears to scientists is two VERY different things.

    You think you know the minds of all scientists working on evolution but you don't.

    They are not all part of some vast atheist conspiracy like you think, for one thing.

    The other thing is, a lot of theses scientists hate each others guts and will try to undermine others work and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail.

    One thing that shines through all of that, there is a convergence of real data and ideas from many fields that adds up to confidence in evolution, in spite of your pathetic creationist anti-science stance.

    I know, now you will pull the 'I am not against science, I am only for that which shows the truth' card.
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    03 Jun '14 08:47
    Please, Forum Moderator, move this thread to the Spiritual Forum where it belongs!
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78565
    03 Jun '14 11:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It appears to me that most scientists come into the study with the agenda of proving evolution correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of evolution.

    Evolutionists are continually using their political power to ban the teaching of any problem with the evolution theory or th ...[text shortened]... coming more clear that the theory of evolution is based on a belief system and not real science.
    No RJ, they just accept the paradigm theory without questioning it that much. This is fairly normal within science, there is no point in doubting paradigm theories unless there is significant evidence against them. You on the other hand reject the paradigm theory based on no scientifically acceptable evidence. I feel safe ignoring the stuff you keep posting because of its obvious bias and very poor quality. If Dawkins started saying it I might listen, but not from your preachers.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    03 Jun '14 15:00
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What it appears to you and what it appears to scientists is two VERY different things.

    You think you know the minds of all scientists working on evolution but you don't.

    They are not all part of some vast atheist conspiracy like you think, for one thing.

    The other thing is, a lot of theses scientists hate each others guts and will try to undermin ...[text shortened]... now you will pull the 'I am not against science, I am only for that which shows the truth' card.
    I did not say ALL, I said MOST.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    03 Jun '14 15:20
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    No RJ, they just accept the paradigm theory without questioning it that much. This is fairly normal within science, there is no point in doubting paradigm theories unless there is significant evidence against them. You on the other hand reject the paradigm theory [b]based on no scientifically acceptable evidence. I feel safe ignoring the st ...[text shortened]... nd very poor quality. If Dawkins started saying it I might listen, but not from your preachers.[/b]
    So you think Richard Dawkins is not biased? Here is a quote about Dawkins from Wikipedia:

    Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    03 Jun '14 15:46
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So you think Richard Dawkins is not biased? Here is a quote about Dawkins from Wikipedia:

    [b]Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.
    [/b]
    that is not bias, it is common sense. yes, creationism and intelligent design are garbage, yes, they shouldn't be taught in schools. neither should Magic 101 or "Practical Voodoo " be.


    this opinion is also completely irrelevant to Dawkins' expertise in evolution, which i consider to be considerable.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    03 Jun '14 16:12
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    that is not bias, it is common sense. yes, creationism and intelligent design are garbage, yes, they shouldn't be taught in schools. neither should Magic 101 or "Practical Voodoo " be.


    this opinion is also completely irrelevant to Dawkins' expertise in evolution, which i consider to be considerable.
    I don't believe it is common sense to believe the theory of evolution. It was not even a common belief until recently. Is the belief that DNA just created itself common sense? Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    03 Jun '14 16:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't believe it is common sense to believe the theory of evolution. It was not even a common belief until recently. Is the belief that DNA just created itself common sense? Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?
    Don't feed the troll.
Back to Top