The Anti-Evolution Hall Of Fame

1. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   This thread is for the best examples of people who do not understand the Theory of Evolution and are yet convinced that they have a logical argument which proves it is incorrect.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dojimonsterposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Understand something doesn't mean that we beleive in it

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Peter M. Lopezposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      9.95 on the funniness scale.

      replyreport
2. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   Score: 8.25 out of a possible 10

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dojimonsterposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      wow a new thread. Thx for the score jenny. Why can't we just reversed the issue? can people proof evolution exists?   
      
      because i've never seen any fish that can live on the ground...

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Lisa HWposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Have you ever watched a film that shows the development of an embryo into a fetus and eventually a baby?  Great example of how a simple form of life develops into a "fish" and later turns into an air-breathing little human being.  (And what those videos don't show is how that little creature eventually moves around on all four limbs before standing up and walking on two feet.)  You could take it even further and see that a two-year-old child's build is more like the stockier build and awkward gait associated with prehistoric man; while a school-aged child tends to slim out and become more "refined".  Finally, the fact that the brain is not completely mature until early to mid twenties, a parallel could be seen between that and the fact that the human brain has evolved to its present level, from a "less mature" one.  I once saw a film on puppies in utero, and it appears to me that similar (and yet separate) parallels could be drawn for that species.
         
         With variations in metabolism (between species), as well as other variations; I've always seen the conception-to-mature process as a "sped up version of evolution".   For people who have trouble visualizing how man "made the jump" from being a simpler creature, considering the process that goes on from conception to maturity can help demonstrate that.  (Of course, there's always the chance that we were actually picked from a cabbage patch in the beginning.    )  In all seriousness, it makes sense to me that life today would likely have retained some of things that went into getting it from there to here.
         
         Having said all that, you essentially started out living much like a fish, and you eventually became a creature who would live on land and walk.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            He's been nominated already a while ago Lisa. We have quite a few decent newcomers, why don't you nominate any one of them instead?

            replyreport
   2. 61

      mohamedhmmposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree...

      replyreport
3. 58

   Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

   I like this one quite a lot. 8.5? I couldn't find the dolphin one.
   
   Jenny - Once again, I would join your fan club if I hadn't already.

   replyreport
4. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   Sorry, Dojimonster, nothing you do now can raise your score - if you would like to enter another attempt we will rate it on its merits, but you will need to do it on another thread.
   
   You cannot nominate your own posts on this thread, but feel free to nominate other people's.
   
   Jenny

   replyreport
5. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   4.5

   replyreport
6. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   6
   
   And I have decided that I should attribute these, in case people want to read them in context to appreciate their full glory - so this one is from Page 10 of Atheism Rules.

   replyreport
7. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   On its own, this would not qualify, but combined with subsequent embellishments ...
   
   
   
   ... I think it warrants at least a 4 or a 5.
   
   The two parts are separated by a few pages, but the first part is Page 13 of Atheism Rules.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I vote a 7 for this one.
      
      You have to take into account the effort and determination involved

      replyreport
8. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   8
   
   Page 13 of Atheism Rules

   replyreport
9. 69

   Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

   Here's the first appearance of your dolphins, Mark - page 17 of Atheism Rules.
   
   
   
   You have to give the man at least a 9 for not knowing that dolphins are mammals, closely related to land mammals, and that current theory is indeed that they later returned to the sea, and what's more, for thinking the idea so ridiculous that he could throw it in as a clinching argument.
   
   
   
   Page 26 of Atheism Rules.
   
   9.2, I'd say.

   replyreport
10. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    That's the one.
    
    Definitely a 9.2
    
    I was in a discussion with one of the main contenders, but I don't think I am helping his cause. He is just about to discover that the catholics changed their mind a while back. It might be a shock.

    replyreport
11. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    But there was more!
    
    
    
    Also on Page 26.
    
    Only an 8 for that one, though.

    replyreport
12. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Page 35
    
    I am not sure if this one will count, but it refers to an interesting new meaning of the words "scientific evidence."

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I think redefining scientific words definitely counts for a bonus point or two. How would you score that one, Mark?

       replyreport
13. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    5.5

    replyreport
14. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I have to go with at least an 8. It should also count for extra points for the introduction of several new theories all at the same time:
    
    
    
    I like this one particularly:
    
    

    replyreport
15. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    4
    
    Outright denial of established scientific evidence can't score as well as some of the more colorful things we saw earlier.

    replyreport
16. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I agree. I much prefer the ones with some creative flair to them.
    
    Anyone can deny something just because they have never seen it

    replyreport
17. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    9.5
    
    I have yet to see a better demonstration of utter incomprehension of the mechanism of natural selection and the process of evolution.
    
    Atheism Rules p3=26.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Wow.
       I'm brand-new to this site so I don't know any of you well yet. Have to say that this topic is a thing... of... beauty.
       Love it. I'm so very glad I found it just now.

       replyreport
18. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    I was tempted to give this one three separate nominations, but in the end I decided to enter it in its glorious completeness.
    
    
    
    Bonus points for a) misunderstanding the Second Law
    b) falsely relating it to evolution
    c) misunderstanding the nature of "energy" required to create order in the face of the Second Law
    d) mis-stating what evolution theory says
    e) winding up by asserting that we ARE changing over time (thus cutting the legs out from under all previous "we are what we are because we were made that way" arguments)
    
    9.5 again, I think.
    
    Atheism Rules p34

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Zarm Nefilinposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       lmao, this is a 10 for me.

       replyreport
19. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    I think I have developed a new rule of thumb - to score over 9, you have to take something that is evidence FOR the theory of evolution, and present it as though it somehow qualifies as evidence AGAINST.

    replyreport
20. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    With that in mind, it is possible that we may have something even higher than a 9.5
    
    
    
    I'm going to throw this one open for discussion - should it get more than 9.5?
    
    Atheism Rules p35

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I had forgotten that one, but I like it so much I re-quoted it. 9.7 ?

       replyreport
21. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I like it. Obviously contradictory statements in the same post have got to be worth more points than simply misunderstanding.
    
    Could be we need to define our value system more accurately.
    
    I like the tadpole one though. I have read it several times and still don't understand the point he was trying to make. Which for me has got to count for extra.

    replyreport
22. 79

    kerrygposted 16 years ago

    I am not sure whether to be amused or appalled...
    
    I especially like the dolphins and tadpoles, though ironically, the main reason I knew dolphins probably descend from land mammals is on account of my own favorite crackpot theory, the Aquatic Ape.
    
    Well, that and the fact that they occasionally have vestigial legs, which you would think would be a bit of a giveaway.

    replyreport
23. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    I think we have our winner!
    
    10 out of 10.
    
    This is exactly the organism that the Creationists on this list have been bleating "couldn't exist". This is an organism which reproduces its DNA WITHOUT the protection of a cell membrane (in fungal form - you can watch it on the video) but under the right conditions forms (or parasitises) single cells, to make a bacterial "spore factory", and reproduces using the material inside the cell.
    
    This organism is present in EVERY LIVING CREATURE, INCLUDING PLANTS.
    
    This organism is the missing link between loose reproducing DNA in a fluid medium, and single-celled organisms - because it can be both, much as the axolotl can be both fish and lizard, depending on the conditions.
    
    A resounding piece of evidence that it is indeed possible to progress from raw DNA reproducing in fluid to cellular organisms - a cornerstone requirement of evolutionary theory.
    
    How Do You Know God Exists p10.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Eng.Mposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       even if evolution is right.-----------------------
       
       God created it because it needs somebody to design it to avoid mistakes.
       
       do you see mistakes in nature????

       replyreport
       1. 69

          Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          You must be a man.
          
          Nobody who has had to live in a female body would need to ask that question.
          
          Mistakes! Where do I begin? Start by Googling "candida albicans".
          
          Jenny

          replyreport
          1. 65

             Eng.Mposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             *how do you define mistakes?
             
             is every exception a mistake?

             replyreport
          2. 0

             sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             That is the funniest thing I have seen you say yet Jenny!    ROTFLMAO

             replyreport
       2. 0

          Zarm Nefilinposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Disease, diseases, cancer, creationists.
          
          These are all mistakes in.....
          
          

          replyreport
24. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Hey Jenny, I thought people weren't allowed to nominate their own stuff ?

    replyreport
25. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    True. And it is at best a 3 anyway ...
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
26. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I think I still prefer the homemade microscope one.

    replyreport
27. 69

    talfordposted 16 years ago

    It is almost silly to think that anyone could call themselves a scientist and believe in evolution.
    
    Evolutionists acknowledge that what ever simple life first started the great evolution of life, does not even exist to day, nor is their any evidence of it. Other than everything living. That to them is proof. Complete circular reasoning.
    
    Why do they say it does not exist? No life that we now have on earth is simple enough to have evolved from dirt!  So, it apparently evolved and then evolved into something else that made it extinct. Hum?
    
    Then there is that pesky second law of thermodynamics. There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. No order from disorder.
    
    Then again, once an organism mutates and it has a change in DNA and chromosome count it can no longer reproduce.
    
    That's OK, keep the faith. With enough twists and turns you'll figure out some way to hold on. Don't let facts get in your way.

    replyreport
28. 66

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Another self-nomination

    replyreport
29. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    Talford,
    
    You can't nominate yourself for this award. You have to post your attempt in one of the discussion threads, and if it is ludicrous enough it will get nominated into this thread with a suggested score attached.
    
    Feel free to nominate someone else, though.
    
    Jenny
    
    P.S. That was a good effort. If you posted it in a discussion thread it would probably get nominated.

    replyreport
30. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I would like to nominate this one. It seems a popular argument and I couldn't find this one on the thread:
    
    
    
    Mainly because it is my favorite argument. i.e I believe, and this logically means that when I look at nature, I come to the inescapable conclusion that it was made by a creator because this could not have evolved naturally. No other possible answer.
    
    No wonder these people are frightened by the idea of evolution.
    
    
    If you build a house of cards based on this reasoning, evolution will knock it flat. Which, I assume will also call into doubt their entire belief system.

    replyreport
31. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    Hmmm, tricky to put a score to that one.
    
    On the one hand, it is lacking some of the florid internal inconsistencies and logical errors that make the others such delightful reading.
    
    On the other hand, it does have a classic "total lack of logic" sweetness to it. I can't imagine how this occurred naturally, therefore it didn't.
    
    Still, I could only give it a 3 or a 4, I think.
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
32. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Oh, it's definitely a low-scorer. I do have a fondness for this argument though. Call it sentimental if you will, and I know you don't agree with me keep knocking the straw man, but this is a very, very popular reasoning.

    replyreport
33. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    Yes, it is.
    
    "I'm not smart or informed enough to imagine how this all happened, therefore there is no logical explanation and it was supernatural" does have a certain circularity to it.
    
    Lower the IQ and the education level far enough, and electric light bulbs become Divine Intervention.
    
    There is a certain arrogance to the assumption that if I don't know how it happened, then nobody else could possibly know how it happened, and it is, in fact, un-knowable how it happened.
    
    Because if there WAS a natural explanation for it, of course, someone would have knocked on my door and explained to to me by now, so there just must not be one ...
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       To say you the truth I think this mindset has far wider reach than just religion. For example - I don't know how to drive fast safely and don't want to learn this, therefore it is impossible, and everybody who attempts it should be put in jail

       replyreport
34. 65

    Eng.Mposted 16 years ago

    so, is there anything can be considered rational enough?
    
    or, if there is such a thing. then , there could be something we don't know that is rationally stronger than the other one.
    
    in this case .
    there are too many uncertain things in life and we  think they are certain.
    
    almost everything is relative.
    and everything in the world would be circular.
    
    but,I think there must be a reference for everyone.
    this reference can be right or wrong depending on our bias status, education,IQ , aims and etc
    
    
    for example , lets say:
    1-there could be God BUT we don't know how to get sure about it?
    2-there's no God BUT we don't how creation and evolution happend?
    
    lets ask a question to indicate our reference to judge this issue:
    *does creation need a mind to happen?

    replyreport
35. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    Eng. M,
    
    You can't nominate your own stuff.
    
    This thread is only for comments which stand out as award-winning.
    
    If you want to have a general discussion, then take your post and start a new thread, or post it in a relevant thread.
    
    If you come up with something spectacular and award-worthy, rest assured that someone else will nominate it for you.
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
36. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    5.0

    replyreport
37. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Nah, 4.0
    
    He has been trying for days:
    
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/5136
    
    Nothing worth nominating

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Eng.Mposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       thanx.
       but what are your basics for this evaluation?
       
       
       
       4.0  Jenny is more generous than you man.
       I guess because women are emotional by chance.
       loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
       
       man, I am not trying to convince you about anything.
       I just want to know if you have strong proofs.
       I wanted to know how an atheist thinks.
       atheists are smart , I admit that.
       they want to know everything.that's great.
       in my opinion, they may be not persuaded very much by creating but they don't  prooves for evolution.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          No. I mean you have been trying to get nominated for days.

          replyreport
          1. 65

             Eng.Mposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             good answer. looooooooooooooooooool
             you are too smart to be an evolutionist.
             I will say you are biased.
             

             replyreport
38. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    Take it to another thread, Eng M. You can't nominate yourself into this one. Post something jaw-dropping in another thread, and I guarantee someone will nominate it.
    
    Feel free to nominate someone else, though - check the first post for the evaluation criteria, and read through some of the previous nominees to get a feel for the field of competition.
    
    You may take a while to "get your eye in", though, given the challenges of having English as a second language and having no education in the rules of formal logic.
    
    However, you have been nominated once, and with patience and practice I am sure you will be nominated again.
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Eng.Mposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I have read about evolution alot but I think I will follow your advice to see exactly what is going on here.
       
       
       
       right.
       but I believe that everyone has some kind of logic.(easy logic)
       
       
       
       thanx loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
       one time is enough.
       I want to understand how atheists think.
       how they ignore realities and facts.

       replyreport
39. 69

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    5.5
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       This is pretty good. 5.9 even. Got to love the passion as well - worth an extra few points for that lol
       
       "your Creator is dirt," is my favorite bit.
       
       And then the whole circular meaningless eternal rubbish.
       
       Excellent entertainment and well worth submission to this thread.

       replyreport
40. 66

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    LOL Jenny, where did you find this king of logic?

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Right here in the religion forum, Misha. Check the last 24 hours of posts. I snipped this bit out of the middle of a long rant, because you can't really appreciate its magnificence when it's lost in a slab of text.
       
       Jenny

       replyreport
41. 60

    Eric Graudinsposted 16 years ago

    You guys crack me up.
    I stuck my head into the religious forums a couple of times - and quickly pulled it out again.
    
    There are some very special people loose in there!

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       "Special," is right. But you are missing out on the best arguments in town

       replyreport
42. 60

    Eric Graudinsposted 16 years ago

    I really don't have the time.
    Or the inclination. Or the knowledge for that matter - not that this is much of a barrier.
    
    I'm having dinner with a mate tomorrow who is an author, and an expert on religions.
    (He was a good friend of Michael Baigent)
    If I can get Douglas interested in hubpages, he'd cut those guys to ribbons!
    
    And I've just got a new baby to soak up a bit of time - a 1983 CX650 motorcycle.
    (So feel free to trot out all your old "plastic maggot" jokes. If you've been interested in bikes for a while, you'll know what I mean)

    replyreport
43. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Eric - the CXs are classic - most of the British ones got destroyed in London being used as courier bikes. It was the bike to have as a courier.

    replyreport
44. 60

    Prophecy Teacherposted 16 years ago

    There are endless examples of something coming from something - and not a single example of something coming from nothing. (seemingly for no reason at all)
    
    I believe something comes from God - and I called it faith.
    Atheists believe something came from nothing - and call it science - and pretend it's not faith.
    
    The evolutionary something came from somewhere and the closest Atheistic Evolutionists have come to it's source - is the Big Bang. And yet, all Time, Physics, Matter, and Energy were created in that event.
    
    If that is so - and they say it is -  it is impossible to know what is on the other side of the Big Bang event - for we are matter and it is not.
    
    Furthermore - since we are inside the results of the Big Bang - a finite material thing with a definite beginning  - it is impossible to discover the infinite - through science.
    
    I call that God
    They call that - well, they haven't finished thinking about it. But they think they have it surrounded.
    
    Man, has surrounded God and is more certain than ever, He does not exist. If only everyone will listen.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Zarm Nefilinposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I for one find it to be pretty arrogant to claim to know where everything originally came from and call that "God" and belief in it "faith".  If you think scientists think everything came from the big bang and put all their money on that, I think you may end up sorely mistaken.
       Science is far from having all the answers, hell science is only in it's infancy.  It has only been a few hundred years since Europe shook off the chains of totalitarianism and embraced a system of understanding things that tries not to rely on presumptions as much as possible.
       
       The function of intelligence is not to believe regardless, the function of intelligence is to know with the evidence at hand, and curiously enough knowledge requires a suspension of judgment that "faith" conspicuously lacks.  A suspension of judgment that is humble enough to admit that it might not be the best explanation for things.
       
       In dogmatic religion you will find none of that, but what you will find is hard and sure answers that claim immortality and that throughout the centuries and millenia get broken like the tree that stands firm against the tornado.
       
       If somehow I died and got before "God" I would not have the arrogance within me to say that I "Knew" better all along, I would simply say that I had no evidence or logical reason to believe and that I am finally glad to meet "God" face to face.
       
       However, I ask you this Prophecy:
       
       If you died and got before Allah rather than Jesus, what would you say then if it turns out you were wrong, dead wrong?
       
       Would you prefer an eternity without "God"?  Or are you so sure you are right that there is zero possibility of that happening?
       
       You see, I prefer to stick to that which is known and provable and disengage from that which is vaguely inherently unknowable and claims it cannot be dis-proven by any means at all.  I prefer to suspend judgment on all versions of "God" except those that directly contradict known scientific fact, and by that I mean the kind of scientific fact that can only be rephrased and not essentially changed.
       
       As in the fact that humans are animals and classifiable as such.
       
       So in that case, if some religion were to come along and teach that human beings are not animals and that in fact we were merely "spirits" that looked like animals, then I could safely reject that version of "God(s)" as being false and quite probably untrue (as could you).
       
       Matter of fact I am pretty sure such a religion or spirituality exists in some form or another that teaches just that.
       
       Science teaches that we are animals, and that is because of the biological classification that we use to describe ourselves in comparison to other mammals.
       
       For me, uncertainty allows maneuvering room and keeps me humble in my own estimations of things, but it is a humility which I think perhaps is very different from the sort that Christians regularly claim to exhibit, because at the end of the day I do not submit my self worth on the alter of worship of anything, and I also do not find self worship attractive as I find myself hardly fit to worship.
       
       Worship is rather pathetic all around I would contend, as it requires people to submit to the irrational and find themselves wanting, rather than submit to the rational and find their own understanding wanting and desire more rather than feel like they are inherently worth less because they have less "knowledge".

       replyreport
    2. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       As Jenny has explained - You cannot nominate your own stuff for this thread. If it is good enough on one of the other threads, some one else will nominate it for you.

       replyreport
45. 60

    Prophecy Teacherposted 16 years ago

    Sorry Mark, didn't see the rules. I'll pay more attention.

    replyreport
46. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I have a new one I like:
    
    
    
    5.1 - if only for the fact that I am apparently feeling "safe," because I think I am related to a maggot.
    
    Good effort. It has a certain flow to it that makes it a special effort. Darwin admitting his ideas were a theory on his death bed. I like that a lot.

    replyreport
47. 68

    Make Moneyposted 16 years ago

    Although I believe this thread makes atheistism out to be a religion and you it's god Jenny (because you are the only one keeping score) I would like to contribute to this thread and receive your score from on high if you don't mind.  Some of my posts may be kind of humorous, you know because it is kind of a funny topic.  I will probably be using the lol smiley quite often.
    
    If my posts need to be nominated will someone please nominate them so the almighty Jenny can score them.
    
    Okay first one that needs your score oh almighty Jenny.
    
    -------------------------------------------------
    
    This first one is kind of related to two others on the first page that also refer to the flood at the time of Noah.
    
    It has been proven scientifically that if an object is immersed in water for a given time it will effect in a big way the carbon dating of that object.
    
    There are many cultures that talk about a great flood in the past (just so you do not have to take the word of the Bible into account).
    
    So with this in mind does that not alter the dates given to everything before the flood at the time of Noah?
    
    Keep in mind that the great god of science was used to prove some carbon dating inaccurate.
    
    Mike

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Mike - you cannot nominate your own stuff for this thread, but don't worry, when you reach a certain level on another thread, some one else will surely nominate it for you

       replyreport
48. 68

    Make Moneyposted 16 years ago

    Please prove to this skeptic the hypothesis of the big bang.
    
    Please nominate.
    
    Mike

    replyreport
49. 68

    Make Moneyposted 16 years ago

    Please prove to this skeptic the hypothesis of the black holes.
    
    Please nominate.
    
    More to come.
    
    Mike

    replyreport
50. 59

    knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

    Half more or less, just as figure of speech, believe in the bible in particular, and religion in general, and half believe in the big bang and black holes. Shows to me most people believe in the
    ridiculous, or what they are told.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       With your words knolyourself you have just proven that the belief in evolution is a faith system.  So it shouldn't be taught in schools either.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Mike - as I said, you cannot nominate yourself for this thread.
          
          And I must say - demonstrating an ignorance of the difference between evolution and black holes is unlikely to achieve a nomination.

          replyreport
          1. 68

             Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             Mark we just witnessed a different thread being closed because of too many personal attacks, of which in my opinion you were given complete immunity.  I do not appreciate your personal attack on me by calling me ignorant.  We will mark that down as your first personal attack on me, but just in this thread.
             
             You say of one of my posts that I am "demonstrating an ignorance of the difference between evolution and black holes".  Not that I believe this gobuldy goop but this web site states "Yet this is the bright new picture of black holes and their role in the evolution of the universe." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/b … 128-1.html  I knew that I had heard of a connection between black holes and evolution, otherwise I wouldn't have posted in this thread asking for proof.
             
             It seems to me that you need to catch up on your religion of evolution Mark.  You wouldn't want Jenny to excommunicate you.
             
             We can have fun with this thread if we just lighted up a bit.
             
             While I was looking for the above web site I did come across this web site that proves the existence of black holes, well yes, no, maybe. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … photo.html  Even if it does it still does not prove Darwin's hypothesis of evolution.
             
             Now Mark maybe you'd like to nominate my posts to the almighty Jenny on high.
             
             Peace
             Mike

             replyreport