Quote Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote Originally Posted by Missy
Quote Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote Originally Posted by Missy
I'm still waiting for someone to present a case for creationism.

Actually english is more expressive simply because it contains more words, it has absorbed from many cultures rather than isolating itself.

I'd also like to know what site bilbo is ripping all this nonsense from.

I'll tackle one of those dodgy carvings for you that you presented as evidence You are seeing what you want to see to suit you're thinking. Anyone seen a newt? you know those pre-historic lizard looking types with a tale and a ridged back..................

Hey Missy, unfortunately I don't think you would ever be convinced no matter what evidence was put before you. You already reject the idea of a creator so cannot see the evidence before you without looking at it through evolutionary eyes.
show me the evidence for a creator. All you're doing is ripping in to one theory without any evidence for your own. Mong.

Tell you what, the idea that that 'picture' is actualy another sort of lizard, hence a newt or Komodo dragon are much more likely than the nonsence you're coming up with.
Actually evidence against evolution IS evidence for a creator. If the fossil record clearly shows that no animal or plant species shows any evidence whatsoever of gradual evolution then the only other possible explanation is that these creatures first appeared on earth instantly and fully formed, i.e either created instantly or brought here in their completed forms from outer space.

Bollocks is it. I disprove evolution and I'm queen of the universe. I disprove evolution therefore I don't have to prove my own theory. Now that's scientific.



hmm now let’s see, a ridged backed lizard, a newt another another big ass lizard that eats people. hmm





[img width=700 height=525]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/straightleftknee/komododragon.jpg[/img]