1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '12 06:535 edits
    Since evolution is contradicted by many known facts of science, there are thus many who don't regard it as either proven or as fact, for purely scientific reasons. Many other evolutionists also acknowledge the many flaws in it, unlike the Law of Gravity which has no known exceptions.

    Major problems with evolution as far as science itself is concerned relate to the fact that it contradicts known scientific Laws, such as the Law of Biogenesis, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Genetics also poses a number of problems for evolution as do the fields of biochemistry, geology, and astronomy. The fossil record is also another major problem area with only a handful of doubtful transitional forms, quite contrary to what would be expected if the theory were an accurate scientific description of life on earth.

    Many people are also only taught the "evolution is a fact" doctrine and so they come out of the school system as dutiful believers in it, totally unaware of the great mass of scientific evidence which contradicts it. So, quite naturally, they repeat that it is a scientific fact. Although stating this does not actually make it so - no matter how sincere is either one's belief in it - or how profound is one's ignorance of the contradictory data.

    "Another famous example for evolution is the Piltdown man where evolutionist had claimed that they had discovered a fossil of a transitional form of man, the Piltdown man. This discovery was said to be over 500 thousand years old and was greatly accepted by the scientific community as a transitional form of man until 40 years later. In 1949, the British Department had decided to do a fluorine-test on this so called transitional form. When they conducted a test on the fossil the results were surprising. They had found out that the fossil was no older then a few thousand years. What was more surprising was that the fossil was made out of a skull of a five hundred year old man and the jaw of an orangutan. This just further downgrades the evolutionist, showing how they would stoop to such cheap tricks in order to prove they’re theory correct."

    http://aireport.blogspot.com/

    Did you catch that? The skull of a five hundred year old man. That proves man could live to be five hundred years old a few thousand years ago. The Holy Bible proves true again!

    http://www.truths.ca/evolutionary-facts.htm

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
  2. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    23 Jun '12 10:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Did you catch that? [b]The skull of a five hundred year old man. That proves man could live to be five hundred years old a few thousand years ago. The Holy Bible proves true again![/b]
    The skull was 500 years old, not the man it had belonged to. How easily people can fall prey to hoaxes. Will you ever use http://aireport.blogspot.com/ as a source again do you think?
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jun '12 10:39
    Originally posted by FMF
    The skull was 500 years old, not the man it had belonged to. How easily people can fall prey to hoaxes. Will you ever use http://aireport.blogspot.com/ as a source again do you think?
    Of course he will, he loves to see ANYTHING in print that seems in any way to refute evolution, so desperate is he to show his so-called god created everything.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '12 16:18
    Originally posted by FMF
    The skull was 500 years old, not the man it had belonged to. How easily people can fall prey to hoaxes. Will you ever use http://aireport.blogspot.com/ as a source again do you think?
    He did not say the skull was 500 years old. He said it was a skull of a 500 year old man. Remember he had just said the test proved that the fossil was no older then a few thousand years. It is the man he said was 500 years old and the fossil skull was no more than a few thousand years.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    23 Jun '12 16:261 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    He did not say the skull was 500 years old. [b]He said it was a skull of a 500 year old man. Remember he had just said the test proved that the fossil was no older then a few thousand years. It is the man he said was 500 years old and the fossil skull was no more than a few thousand years.[/b]
    Wow are you stupid... (don't know why that still amazes me but every time I think you can't get any
    dumber you go that extra mile and surprise me again)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '12 17:421 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Wow are you stupid... (don't know why that still amazes me but every time I think you can't get any
    dumber you go that extra mile and surprise me again)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
    We are discussing what the person said on
    http://aireport.blogspot.com/
    Doofus!
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jun '12 17:51
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We are discussing what the person said on
    http://aireport.blogspot.com/
    Doofus!
    And of course you let another person do your thinking for you, whatever an anti evolution dude says MUST be true.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '12 18:021 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And of course you let another person do your thinking for you, whatever an anti evolution dude says MUST be true.
    No. I did the reasoning of what he said myself. I think used perfectly good logic and reasoning of what he said. You just don't like the conclusion. 😏
    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jun '12 18:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No. I did the reasoning of what he said myself. I think used perfectly good logic and reasoning of what he said. You just don't like the conclusion. 😏
    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
    *Sonhouse shakes head in disbelief and walks away*
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    23 Jun '12 21:061 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No. I did the reasoning of what he said myself. I think used perfectly good logic and reasoning of what he said.
    What the blogger said is either incorrectly/clumsily written or a deliberate deception. You choose. The skull was 500 years old. The man, whose skull it was, was not 500 years old when he died, unless you have evidence that he was, which of course you don't. The case is famous. You've been hoaxed by a blogger. Or perhaps you've just hoaxed yourself. Either way, same result.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '12 21:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    What the blogger said is either incorrectly/clumsily written or a deliberate deception. You choose. The skull was 500 years old. The man, whose skull it was, was not 500 years old when he died, unless you have evidence that he was, which of course you don't. The case is famous. You've been hoaxed by a blogger. Or perhaps you've just hoaxed yourself. Either way, same result.
    The hoax was piltdown man.
  12. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    23 Jun '12 21:36
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The hoax was piltdown man.
    Yes indeed, infamously so. But you have allowed yourself to be hoaxed by what some blogger said about the skull being of a 500 year old man when it was a skull of a 500 year old corpse/skeleton.
  13. Joined
    14 May '03
    Moves
    89724
    23 Jun '12 23:26
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The hoax was piltdown man.
    Adj. 1. retarded - relatively slow in mental or emotional or physical development
  14. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    24 Jun '12 00:27
    they're still on piltdown man?

    really scraping the bottom the the septic tank for material.
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    24 Jun '12 02:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    He did not say the skull was 500 years old. [b]He said it was a skull of a 500 year old man.[/b]
    What an anonymous blogger "said" on a blog that has just one blog entry made 7 years ago, does not constitute "evidence".

    If this is a joke on your part, persisting with it is over-egging it. If it is intended to be a bit of self-deprecation, then you would need to be regarded with more fondness by this community for its humour to work. Just saying.
Back to Top