Skip to comments.Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
You know my argument by now, so why continue to show you absolute ignorance of it?
Or maybe you do this just to show your arrogance?
And I missed it.
I second the motion to debate Hovind online. The debate thread could be closed to all but Hovind and a couple of FReepers.
Results would be locked for everyone to see forever.
..And just because *you're* sadly duped into believing such cultist B.S. doesn't mean it's evidence for anything.
Do even *you* believe this stuff that spews out of your brain?
And whether do you do or not, do you *really* believe that anyone is going to mistake your bizarre rant for an adequate rebuttal to the enormous amount of hard evidence contained in the link you're trying to blow off?
What's wrong with you folks? Do you find reality that hard to take a good look at?
A tornado will assemble a 747 in a junkyard long before Hovind will agree to a written debate. He's strictly a razzle-dazzle flim-flam man.
National Geographic and RD? *more sigh*
I think we should issue the challenge every day.
FR has several million unique visitors per week.
Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...
BELIEVE is the key word there for both you and I. The only difference I state my theory as a belief, your ilk tries to state BELIEF as fact, and I don't buy it and apparently neither does the majority of people, at least honest people.
Here's some reality. You'll probably appreciate this fellow (other folks might not). I think he's a handsome lad!
Fossil: KNM-WT 15000
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
So, in the meantime I'll presume you were just just making stuff up in post #440 when you said "some of the premises of the original TOE have been debunked".
Based on previous readings on these threads, I'm beginning to think that 'ilk' is an insult.
You can't possibly be as dumb as you pretend or else you wouldn't be capable of typing...
Now there's a true classic! It's going into the list.
Sure, presume away...
Show me an existing roman civilisation is full fling right now and I *might* just believe that such a thing ever happened.
Is it the contention of all you evolutionist that just because I've had something explained to me that mean I should just automatically belive in the cult of evolution?
I've "explain" alot of things to evolutionist too...Obviously you don't believe you're being duped by a huge lie?
This little gem does dempnstrate the power of Hollywood to generate negative intelligence in its customers.
And I forgot to add that your quote editing is to be admired as much as your presuming.