Wld any of u guys do me a favor?
-
Khi- Salam. I already told u tht losing things is an example pf devolution not evolution so how can u use this in support of evolution.
Evolution can go either way. Besides, the thing is, Archaeopteryx looks like reptiles. If things were created separately, why would it have reptilian features?
Khi- By 100% bird i meant tht it's original ancestor was a bird. GOD created tht kind distincltly, not out of dinos. Get my pt now?
Are all birds one kind then? Okay, then all mammals are one kind too. That includes humans.
Khi- How come? Is Arx the 1st bird which appeared on earth?
What I mean is, Archaeopteryx is not created separately from other organisms. The whole world is created in one act of creation which is still continuing today.
But they are still wings... structures built for flying. Why weren't the penguin designed with fins like fish? Why weren't the ostrich designed without wings, like the cheetah or the horse, both adapted for running?
Khi- Do u know wht u r implying by these qs? U r implying tht GOD Almighty made an imperfect creation. See now y im against this theory. It downplays the knowledge power n wisdom of our Creator. All these creatures have their role 2 play in the environment.
Who said that creatures are perfect?
The cassowary and emu, also flightless birds, have a truly vestigial wing it is reduced to stumps. Now why would a designer designed that, if not for evidence of common descent? Why are there flightless birds after all?
The fact that they have wings modified for other uses point to common descent of ostriches and penguins to all other birds.
Khi- The DNA code allowed 4 such modidification. Thts y it was possbile. GOD had already calculated this be4time so tht different BIRDS adjust 2 different environments. This is not evolution.
uhh... that is evolution. Adaptation to environments.
Khi- There r two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches simlar 2 Arx. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics.
The turaco and the hoatzin chick has a beak, a short tailbone, and no teeth. Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long tailbone. Those three are reptilian features.
Khi- NO! As i said the complex code is already there in the cell. I believe ur still living in Darwin's time where ppl thght the cell was just a simple structure but it is NOT. It contains ALL THE DETAILS HOW U R GOING 2 BE. I told u this in the beginning n still u did not get it.
So you are now back to following Michael Behe, who thinks all life descended from a single 'supercell' which evolves to everything?
Besides, aren't you guilty of ascribing imperfect creation yourself? You say that God created perfect things that crumbles with time. That's not 'perfect'.
Saying that God created humans with God's hands does not contradict evolution.
Khi- It does. It clearly shows tht GOD created humans distinctly, separtetly n perfectly.
The text only said 'khalaqtu bi yadayya'. Created by God's hands. Nothing said about separate creation. 'Khalaq' for me implies a process which incorporates natural causes, as it was used in the context of cosmology and embryology. 2920 says that we should try to observe creation. Therefore I do not have a problem with evolution.
-
Yet the evidence is numerous. Organisms do have inheritable variation. Organisms do produce more offspring than can be supported by the environment. Natural selection do happen, and it does alter the traits of organisms it affected. Life can be classified in a hierachical fashion--groups within groups. Organisms show evidence of common descent in their bodies. The fossil record shows change through time, and transitional forms. Tell me, if God does not want people to think that evolution happened, then why do God left so many evidence of evolution?
Khi- As i said no fossils can cnt 4 evidence of evolution. I leave u 2 think abt this deeply. I see the "evidence" 4 evolution only by propganda in the media. There is no real evidence n Dr. Kent has put a 250,000 US Dollar reward on anyone who can show one. If u r so sure u have the evidence go n collect ur prize. Wht r u waiting 4?
You obviously has not and do not want to study the evidence, because you have already decided that you are right, nothing can prove you wrong. I have shown an example where someone offered evidence to Dr. Dino to claim the prize, yet Dr. Dino didn't even bother to study it. With role models like him, I assume you won't be bothered to study too.
Khi- So ur saying tht GOD did not design the universe in harmony n tht His creatures were not created perfectly 4 their environment. Ofcourse perfect here is used in the relative sense. If evolution was true nobody wld worship such a god. There r even some evolutionists who claim tht the creator did a terrible thing with His Design if He did it n mentions those "vestigial" organs which have been proven false. GOD gave us perfect features i.e. all we need. It now depends on how we use them.
The thing is, the environment changes. Consider those poor finches in my example. They're dead because of a change in the environment. No adaptation is perfect because conditions constantly change. The earth has gone through many catastrophes meteor crashes, ice ages, global warming.
Khi- Dont u get it? I know GOD cld have done it by evolution but HE DID NOT n He wld NOT coz of reasons already mentioned. U just cannot concilliate evolution, except micro evolution, better termed as variation within kinds , with scripture or belief in GOD. It is BEING hypocritical. GOD Bless!
'God could have done it by evolution but God did not'.
Yet God left evidence for evolution. Oh, I forgot. You will not look at the evidence. It is all evilutionist propaganda.
Go on with your mentors Dr. Dino & Harun Yahya. Spread the word. Don't even try to look at the evidence.
-
Evolution can go either way. Besides, the thing is, Archaeopteryx looks like reptiles. If things were created separately, why would it have reptilian features?
Khi- Evolution means complex from simpler not simpler from complex which happens due 2 the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Are all birds one kind then? Okay, then all mammals are one kind too. That includes humans.
Khi- No all birds r not one kind. We have hunting birds which is a different kind n others. But they r definitely not reptiles n never were. Birds r superior 2 reptiles. If birds became reptiles due 2 mutations tht wld still be acceptable but not vice versa. The Quran also says tht GOD turned some humans who were disobedient into apes. Thts the reason i believe their genomes r similar.
What I mean is, Archaeopteryx is not created separately from other organisms. The whole world is created in one act of creation which is still continuing today.
Khi- Tht wld imply tht GOD cannot do it right 1st time. According 2 u He needs time n practice. Duh!
Who said that creatures are perfect?
The cassowary and emu, also flightless birds, have a truly vestigial wing it is reduced to stumps. Now why would a designer designed that, if not for evidence of common descent? Why are there flightless birds after all?
Khi- Now ur shoiwing a case of reverse evolution or devolution. I agree with tht. This is coz of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is getting worse not better. Ur very own egs show tht n u call tht evolution. Hence humans didnt come from apes but exactly the opposite.
uhh... that is evolution. Adaptation to environments.
Khi- Yes thts micro "evolution" as u term it better termed as variation n i agree with tht so does Kent. So whts ur pt? U somehow make a leap in logoc n imply micro shows macro n ths wht wer against.
The turaco and the hoatzin chick has a beak, a short tailbone, and no teeth. Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long tailbone. Those three are reptilian features.
Khiu- Arx has a sternum too which proofs it's a bird not a reptile. Besides dont forget tht fossils dont cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
So you are now back to following Michael Behe, who thinks all life descended from a single 'supercell' which evolves to everything?
Khi- Tht is possible although im not sure abt tht yet. However the codes then 4 all the features of different kinds is already present in tht cell then. Thts not evolution.
Besides, aren't you guilty of ascribing imperfect creation yourself? You say that God created perfect things that crumbles with time. That's not 'perfect'.
Khi- Thts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We r not in paradise bro. We r on earth a temporary place n everything is coming 2 an end here.
The text only said 'khalaqtu bi yadayya'. Created by God's hands. Nothing said about separate creation. 'Khalaq' for me implies a process which incorporates natural causes, as it was used in the context of cosmology and embryology. 2920 says that we should try to observe creation. Therefore I do not have a problem with evolution.
Khi- When GOD says tht He created us with His OWN HANDS this clearly implies He created us with perfect features n not through random chance mutation. The prob with u is u cant get out of ur materialist thght. Ur stuck with tht. Until u get our of tht i think u wont see the light. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Evolution means complex from simpler not simpler from complex which happens due 2 the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And this is why people keep saying 'You don't understand anything about evolution'. Evolution is change in whatever direction.
The second law has nothing to do with evolution.
Khi- No all birds r not one kind. We have hunting birds which is a different kind n others. But they r definitely not reptiles n never were. Birds r superior 2 reptiles. If birds became reptiles due 2 mutations tht wld still be acceptable but not vice versa. The Quran also says tht GOD turned some humans who were disobedient into apes. Thts the reason i believe their genomes r similar.
Are 'hunting birds' one kind? They consist of two whole orders you know. Falconiformes (hawks, eagles) and Strigiformes (owls). So that means 'kind'=order? Okay. Here's another 'kind'. The mammalian order Primates. So humans, monkeys, apes are one kind. Good enough.
Khi- Tht wld imply tht GOD cannot do it right 1st time. According 2 u He needs time n practice. Duh!
Whatever. The fact is Archaeopteryx once existed.
Khi- Now ur shoiwing a case of reverse evolution or devolution. I agree with tht. This is coz of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is getting worse not better. Ur very own egs show tht n u call tht evolution. Hence humans didnt come from apes but exactly the opposite.
So you assume flightless birds descend from flying birds? Okay. That's quite a lot of evolution, you know.
Oh, and I am getting more certain that you are becoming an Xtian. All those talk about decay and everything getting worse... because of what? Original Sin? The Fall from grace?
Khi- Yes thts micro "evolution" as u term it better termed as variation n i agree with tht so does Kent. So whts ur pt? U somehow make a leap in logoc n imply micro shows macro n ths wht wer against.
It is only a difference in scale. Run microevolution for a million years, even a hundred thousand years, and you get macroevolution.
Khiu- Arx has a sternum too which proofs it's a bird not a reptile. Besides dont forget tht fossils dont cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
Oh, it's the 'I will ignore the evidence' excuse again. Go ahead, ignore at your own will. You already decided that you are right, so why bother with evidence... The train ticket to go to Berlin to see the Archaeopteryx foddil isn't worth buying.
The sternum in modern birds are huge. Archaeopteryx's sternum is small.
Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long bony tail.
Archaeopteryx lived before there were modern birds.
But no, Khizar said, I dont bother 2 c the evidence becoz I am right.
Khi- Tht is possible although im not sure abt tht yet. However the codes then 4 all the features of different kinds is already present in tht cell then. Thts not evolution.
Read Behe. Even with the code already present, it will still gave rise to plants, animals, fungi, etc... anything you consider macroevolution.
The text only said 'khalaqtu bi yadayya'. Created by God's hands. Nothing said about separate creation. 'Khalaq' for me implies a process which incorporates natural causes, as it was used in the context of cosmology and embryology. 2920 says that we should try to observe creation. Therefore I do not have a problem with evolution.
Khi- When GOD says tht He created us with His OWN HANDS this clearly implies He created us with perfect features n not through random chance mutation. The prob with u is u cant get out of ur materialist thght. Ur stuck with tht. Until u get our of tht i think u wont see the light. GOD Bless!
Nowhere in the verse I see that humans are created perfect, so your opinion is just as good as mine.
Anyway, I'm just an illusion here, I don't exist you know. I'm a trick played by your brainwaves.
-
And this is why people keep saying 'You don't understand anything about evolution'. Evolution is change in whatever direction.
The second law has nothing to do with evolution.
Khi- Ok im talking abt progressive evolution then. Ofcourse things can devolve n this is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything degrades with time.
Are 'hunting birds' one kind? They consist of two whole orders you know. Falconiformes (hawks, eagles) and Strigiformes (owls). So that means 'kind'=order? Okay. Here's another 'kind'. The mammalian order Primates. So humans, monkeys, apes are one kind. Good enough.
Khi- Apes n monkeys dont have a speech center in their brain like humans. However they r related in a way. The Quran says evil humans were transformed into apes so here we have it. Again devolution not progression n i totally agree with tht.
Whatever. The fact is Archaeopteryx once existed.
Khi- Duh!
So you assume flightless birds descend from flying birds? Okay. That's quite a lot of evolution, you know.
Khi- Id call thuis reverse evolution or devolution n i totally agree with tht. Im refuting progressive evolution here where simple beings became more complex. Thts the whole argument.
Oh, and I am getting more certain that you are becoming an Xtian. All those talk about decay and everything getting worse... because of what? Original Sin? The Fall from grace?
Khi- Yes i believe we all have sinned INDIVIDUALLY(not only Adam n Eve like Xtians claim) n thts y we fell from high heaven 2 this world which is decaying day by day.
Two Deaths and Two Lives for the Disbelievers*How can you disbelieve in GOD when you were dead and He gave you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life, then to Him you ultimately return?
*228 The righteous do not really die; they go straight to Heaven. When their interim on this earth comes to an end, the angels of death simply invite them to go to the same Paradise where Adam and Eve once lived (2154, 3169, 824, 2258, 1632, 3620-27, 4456, 8927-30). Thus, while the righteous experience only the first death following OUR original sin, the unrighteous go through two deaths (4011). At the time of death, the disbelievers know their miserable fate (850, 4727), then they suffer a continuous nightmare that lasts until Hell is created (4046, 8923, Appendix 17, RK).It is only a difference in scale. Run microevolution for a million years, even a hundred thousand years, and you get macroevolution.
Khi- N this is exactly where uve left science n entered Religion. Therefore macro evolution is entirely religious. There is no evidence tht this happens whtsoever. There r limits set in the gene code u know which cannot be tresspassed.
Oh, it's the 'I will ignore the evidence' excuse again. Go ahead, ignore at your own will. You already decided that you are right, so why bother with evidence... The train ticket to go to Berlin to see the Archaeopteryx foddil isn't worth buying.
Khi- Ofcourse not. Fossils dont cnt as evidence. Ive already told u y. I leave u 2 think abt tht.
The sternum in modern birds are huge. Archaeopteryx's sternum is small.
Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long bony tail.
Archaeopteryx lived before there were modern birds.
But no, Khizar said, I dont bother 2 c the evidence becoz I am right.
Khi- I already told u y fossils cannot possibly count as evidence. All u need 2 is after finding a bunch of bones in the dirt rearrange them acording 2 ur preconceived ideas n VOILA u can show anything u want.
Read Behe. Even with the code already present, it will still gave rise to plants, animals, fungi, etc... anything you consider macroevolution.
Khi- I actually dont support this view.
Nowhere in the verse I see that humans are created perfect, so your opinion is just as good as mine.
Khi- Read this verse then
We created man in the best design.Anyway, I'm just an illusion here, I don't exist you know. I'm a trick played by your brainwaves.
Khi- No u r there 4 me coz GOD wants it so. GOD is controlling this matrix. It runs by His command n this is actually the meaning of continous creation n not evolution. It has 2 be refreshed at every instant. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Ok im talking abt progressive evolution then. Ofcourse things can devolve n this is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything degrades with time.
The Second Law does not inhibit evolution just like it does not inhibit your growth from a simple single cell to a complex Khizar.
Khi- Apes n monkeys dont have a speech center in their brain like humans. However they r related in a way. The Quran says evil humans were transformed into apes so here we have it. Again devolution not progression n i totally agree with tht.
But apes and monkeys can communicate with each other! Anyway, you still stick to the Xtian decay theory...
So you assume flightless birds descend from flying birds? Okay. That's quite a lot of evolution, you know.
Khi- Id call thuis reverse evolution or devolution n i totally agree with tht. Im refuting progressive evolution here where simple beings became more complex. Thts the whole argument.
Are flightless birds more simple than flying birds? How would you define simple and complex?
Also, I don't know what to call the evolution from a flying bird into an ostrich or kiwi other than macroevolution.
Khi- Yes i believe we all have sinned INDIVIDUALLY(not only Adam n Eve like Xtians claim) n thts y we fell from high heaven 2 this world which is decaying day by day.
Two Deaths and Two Lives for the Disbelievers*How can you disbelieve in GOD when you were dead and He gave you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life, then to Him you ultimately return?
*228 The righteous do not really die; they go straight to Heaven. When their interim on this earth comes to an end, the angels of death simply invite them to go to the same Paradise where Adam and Eve once lived (2154, 3169, 824, 2258, 1632, 3620-27, 4456, 8927-30). Thus, while the righteous experience only the first death following OUR original sin, the unrighteous go through two deaths (4011). At the time of death, the disbelievers know their miserable fate (850, 4727), then they suffer a continuous nightmare that lasts until Hell is created (4046, 8923, Appendix 17, RK).Read and checked all verses. None support your belief of decay.
It is only a difference in scale. Run microevolution for a million years, even a hundred thousand years, and you get macroevolution.
Khi- N this is exactly where uve left science n entered Religion. Therefore macro evolution is entirely religious. There is no evidence tht this happens whtsoever. There r limits set in the gene code u know which cannot be tresspassed.
Extrapolation in science is not religion. Geologists, physicists, astronomers do that. Besides, I don't need faith to accept evolution. I just need to look at the evidence. Oh wait. You don't even want to look at the evidence because you are already sure that you cannot be wrong.
'limits in set the gene code u know'? No, I don't know. Back this up. Cite a scientific study so I can read abot it.
Khi- Ofcourse not. Fossils dont cnt as evidence. Ive already told u y. I leave u 2 think abt tht.
Khi- I already told u y fossils cannot possibly count as evidence. All u need 2 is after finding a bunch of bones in the dirt rearrange them acording 2 ur preconceived ideas n VOILA u can show anything u want.
Khizar said, 'I wont bother 2 c the evidence, no way, I am sure I am right'
Nowhere in the verse I see that humans are created perfect, so your opinion is just as good as mine.
Khi- Read this verse then
We created man in the best design.First, that verse doesn't cover all other creatures.
Second, 'ahsani taqwim' does not necessarily mean perfect.
Look at these.428 Yuriidu Allahu an yukhaffifa 'ankum wa khuliqa al-insanu da'iifan
Literal God wants that He reduces/lightens from you, and the human was created weak3054 Allahu alladzii khalaqakum min da'fin tsumma ja'ala min ba'di da'fin quwwatan tsumma ja'ala min ba'di quwwatin da'fan wa shaybatan yakhluqu ma yasyaa~-u wa huwa al-'aliimu al-qadiiru
Literal God (is) who created you from weakness then He created/put from after weakness power/strength, then He created/put from after power/strength weakness, and white or gray (old aged), He creates what He wills/wants, and He is the knowledgeable, the capable/able3711 Faistaftihim ahum asyaddu khalqan am man khalaqna inna khalaqnahum min thiinin lazibin
Literal So ask/take their opinion, are they a stronger creation, or who We created? That We created them from very sticky mud/clay . -
Who cares if evolution is true or not? Why make so many threads proving its true or false? It does not change anyones belief in God. I can understand you making one thread or something, but you keep bringing up the same topic over and over again. You're creating animosity between other believers on here for no reason.
Peace.
-
Peace
Im sorry i cant help myself brothers and sisters lol
http//www.hardichr.dk/billeder%20sjove/struds%2001.jpg
regards
Noah -
To Andya,
Salam,
'Ahsani Taqweem' means 'best DESIGN'. I know tht man has been created week. We rnt steel hard machines but can easily get damaged so tht we know our own limits. However this does not change the fact of our BEST DESIGN. The rest ive already told u my opinion. If u wanna consider fossils as evidence, fine, go ahead. Ive already told u tht fossils cannot possibly cnt as evidence, NOT tht i ignore the evidence. U twisted my words 2 make it seem i said something which i dont. GOD Bless! -
Who cares if evolution is true or not? Why make so many threads proving its true or false? It does not change anyones belief in God. I can understand you making one thread or something, but you keep bringing up the same topic over and over again. You're creating animosity between other believers on here for no reason.
Peace.
Good post Riz!
-
To Andya,
Salam,
'Ahsani Taqweem' means 'best DESIGN'. I know tht man has been created week. We rnt steel hard machines but can easily get damaged so tht we know our own limits. However this does not change the fact of our BEST DESIGN. The rest ive already told u my opinion. If u wanna consider fossils as evidence, fine, go ahead. Ive already told u tht fossils cannot possibly cnt as evidence, NOT tht i ignore the evidence. U twisted my words 2 make it seem i said something which i dont. GOD Bless!You ignore the other verses.
Fossils are accepted as scientific evidence. They are real. We know the existence of dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, mammoths, and Neanderthals from fossils. Yet you refuse to study them. Therefore I say you want to ignore the evidence. If you don't want to be viewed as ignoring the evidence, then why do you shy away from learning?
-
You ignore the other verses.
Khi- No i dont.
Fossils are accepted as scientific evidence. They are real. We know the existence of dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, mammoths, and Neanderthals from fossils. Yet you refuse to study them. Therefore I say you want to ignore the evidence. If you don't want to be viewed as ignoring the evidence, then why do you shy away from learning?
Khi- Ok if theyr evidence 4 u fine. However 4 me n many others they r clearly not. Not 2 mention the many fakes presented by evolutionists in the past like piltdown man n nebraska man, the 1st had an orang ottans jaw fixed into a human skull n the latter a pigs tooth! So this is not evidence. On the contrary these r lies. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Ok if theyr evidence 4 u fine. However 4 me n many others they r clearly not. Not 2 mention the many fakes presented by evolutionists in the past like piltdown man n nebraska man, the 1st had an orang ottans jaw fixed into a human skull n the latter a pigs tooth! So this is not evidence. On the contrary these r lies. GOD Bless!
Regarding Piltdown Man & Nebraska Man Sure, Piltdown is a fake (created to counter an actual fossil, the Taung child, Australopithecus africanus) and Nebraska is a mistake. But we don't need them now. The actual fossil record of ancient humans are quite good now. That is the evidence, which you don't bother to study.
This is a good place to study the evidence for human evolution
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs -
Regarding Piltdown Man & Nebraska Man Sure, Piltdown is a fake (created to counter an actual fossil, the Taung child, Australopithecus africanus) and Nebraska is a mistake. But we don't need them now. The actual fossil record of ancient humans are quite good now. That is the evidence, which you don't bother to study.
This is a good place to study the evidence for human evolution
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homsKhi- Salam. 4 the 1st time ic u admitting tht the evolutionists fakes something n thus lied 2 the piblic in deperate support 4 their theory. Im glad u accepted tht. However u then go on 2 say tht the record is "quite good" now n tht tht is the evidence!! I mean Duh! GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Salam. 4 the 1st time ic u admitting tht the evolutionists fakes something n thus lied 2 the piblic in deperate support 4 their theory. Im glad u accepted tht. However u then go on 2 say tht the record is "quite good" now n tht tht is the evidence!! I mean Duh! GOD Bless!
You know, if you cared to do some research about Piltdown, it was forged to divert attention from an real 'ape-man' fossil, Australopithecus africanus. For some reason there are people who don't want their ancestors to be from Africa.
You don't even try to look at the other fossils as if Piltdown is the only one that matters. The fact is, nobody in science cares about Piltdown any more these days. There are good, real fossils that show the shapes of humans in the past Java Man, the Taung child, Lucy, Turkana Boy, 'Mrs Ples', Neanderthals, Toumai. Those are good evidence. We don't need fake fossils if we have real ones.
-
You don't even try to look at the other fossils as if Piltdown is the only one that matters. The fact is, nobody in science cares about Piltdown any more these days. There are good, real fossils that show the shapes of humans in the past Java Man, the Taung child, Lucy, Turkana Boy, 'Mrs Ples', Neanderthals, Toumai. Those are good evidence. We don't need fake fossils if we have real ones.
Khi- Salam. No they r not good evidence either. N as i said since evolutinists forged in the past there is no guarantee tht theyd do it again. Btw Kent already refuted Lucy n the Neanderthals as being our ancestors. Turkana boy was refuted by Harun Yahya in the clip 'The collapse of Darwinism'. N most important of all NO FOSSILS CNT AS EVIDENCE. Remeber i showed u a link 2 dino remains with humans n u immediately rejected them? GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Salam. No they r not good evidence either. N as i said since evolutinists forged in the past there is no guarantee tht theyd do it again. Btw Kent already refuted Lucy n the Neanderthals as being our ancestors. Turkana boy was refuted by Harun Yahya in the clip 'The collapse of Darwinism'. N most important of all NO FOSSILS CNT AS EVIDENCE. Remeber i showed u a link 2 dino remains with humans n u immediately rejected them? GOD Bless!
If you want to avoid the evidence because you're afraid of them, go ahead. It just shows how your reasoning goes.
You just don't want to be bothered to study because you're so sure you're right. Therefore I can't argue properly with you.
You are sure the fossils are forgery, but even most creationists acknowledge them as real. Where is your source that said the entire human fossil record is false?
Lucy
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.jpgTell me, what is Kent Hovind's refutation of Lucy? Write it here.
Turkana Boy
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.jpgTell me, what is Harun Yahya's refutation of Turkana Boy? Write it here.
Dino remains with human? Where? In that thread I only see pictures and sculptures. No fossils.
-
You just don't want to be bothered to study because you're so sure you're right. Therefore I can't argue with you.
Khi- Salam. Well now i can say the same 4 regarding u.
Dino remains with human? Where? In that thread I only see pictures and sculptures. No fossils.
Khi- I told u 2 also view the clip 4 more details. Did u see it? GOD Bless!