Your wall is blocked for some reason. Unblock it if you Want me to reply. Also, I wrote this on this post because it's the most recent non-controversial post you have.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We can talk here. I forgot my wall was blocked from non-friends.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ok. You say I lose arguments. I say I win them. Who's wrong? The person that felt the need to inform the other of his/her opinion. Whichever side your on, unless it gets absolutely rocked, which I've done and I've been rocked, you feel wins. That's the way it is. You know why I call it lies? I can back it up. I've heard every argument. And I can refute them all. Homo erectus- lies, homo habilis-lies, archaeopteryx-misleading information, radiometric dating-REALLY BAD LIES, etc. I could name some more, if you wish. I hardly ever insult the person first. I'm not capable of being insulted and restrainig myself from acting the same. I wish I were, but I can't, usually. However, I don't go around provoking flame wars. But if you wish, we can debate evolution right here, and ill tell you the real facts. Oh, another to the list- Miller-Urey experiment. Ultra fail.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

First off, you said your when you meant you're. There's a difference, learn it. Second, all you ever do is say your facts are true without being able to back them up. How do you know they're lies? You don't. All you have to go on is the fact that evolution doesn't line up with your religion, so it must be lies.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wow ignorance on top of hypocrisy. You used a common instead of a semi-colon. There's a difference; learn it. I know my grammar, and I'm on my phone, so I didn't recognize my typo. I apologize, and hope that in the future you'll be able to understand my meaning despite one apostrophe and one letter missing. I'll show you WHY they're lies, if you'll pull your head out from under that rock. I said I'd tell you, but you just assumed that it's because I'm biased, rather than having facts, yes? Also, note how I didn't resort to insults. However, if you infer some things from my post that is your problem, not mine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm the one under a rock? You're the one who resorts to a fairy tail to get your beliefs. Can you prove they're lies without using your religion?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What those things I mentioned? Why in the... You know, I almost cursed there. THAT is how dumb that statement was. Does my religion concern any of those? No? Then only an ignorant imbecile would bring up religion in a topic like that. In fact, that displays... never mind. Yeah, I'll do it. I'll do one at a time, and let's see if you can refute them. Miller-Urey experiment: What the heck is wrong with evolution? If it needs evidence from this, I'd say it's a sad theory indeed. This experiment, or rather failure of one, is utterly ridiculous. Okay, they tried to reciprocate the events of the first life (abiogenesis). So, eventually they got a gooze containing amino acids (not even proteins!) Then, feeling like they had the authority to make such a claim, they decided that it was life. Now, amino acids ≠ life. Am I the only one to see this? Nope. Many respectable scientists (creationists and evolutionists alike) know the failure of this experiment. However, why...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(cont) Why is this still used as evidence in my textbook? (Published in 2002) It says this shows how life can be formed under the right conditions... Uh, no it doesn't. It shows that ooze will build up, but that's about it.... Also, no scientist (creationist or evolutionist) even thinks the early atmosphere (only evolutionists) would be what they used. They used the wrong atmosphere!!! (According to evolution). I mean, really. Why on earth would that be taken as conclusive evidence, when it was an utter failure. Did I mention my religion once? No? well, you must feel....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're using evidence from one, just ONE, textbook and basically saying since one thing is wrong, they must all be wrong. You're textbook must be old and outdated, because mine hasn't been proven wrong. You can't find one lie and declare them all lies. There are many different theories of evolution. The one in your textbook is wrong. What about the one in mine? I'm not taking biology so I can't tell you which theory it is, but that's not the point. The point is that just because one is wrong doesn't mean they all are.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Golly can you listen? No? I listed about six things present in thousands of textbooks across the US. And you say I have one example. Ill continue until you will wrap your... Nevermind. How about homo erectus. Even some scientists think this is a missing link. No it isn't. They found one (yes, ONE) skull cap, and a couple of thighbones, and constructed this monkey-man based on guesses. They have no idea what he even looked like, or even if he existed. For all they know (which isn't a lot, mind you) that was a regular human corroded by the elements. It's ridiculous how scientists feel they have the authority to make such a claim when all they have is a skull CAP that differs *barely* from a normal human. And they call him a monkey man. Here's a link to many lies in many textbooks across the States: http://creation.com/they-are-teaching-lies-to-our-kids Are you gonna say "only two!" again? I can give numerous examples. And yet, you're still calling me de...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You remind me of those guys that go around saying a dead celebrity is still alive. You're a conspiracy theorist. Science has proven that evolution is true. All those textbooks are old and outdated so they are invalid in your arguement.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Once again, no response. I'll give you ten grand to tell me how evolution was proved. Do it. Can't be done. It's hilarious how you cannot devise a retort, yet still retain a cocky attitude. It's not a conspiracy theory; these are facts. And if you'd actually open your eyes and realize that people DO lie to you, you'd realize the truth. Next: Radiometric dating. Oh my gosh this is like one of the main arguments for evolution. It's hilarious. It's so much of circular logic and unscientific guessing. So, they CAN measure a date, no doubt. However, using six different methods, you get six different times. And in one instance (on MT St Helens) they got a range from 30,000-1.5 million years old. For some rocks 15 years old. Now tell me why this is considered accurate? They only use some methods when they have no clue how old it is, and they can't use Carbon dating if they know how old it is. I mean really, THIS is considered substantial proof? That's laugha...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You know what else uses circular logic? Your bible. But I bet you'd argue that it's valid all day long. Two different authors wrote the same story of Noah's Ark, but neither author agrees if two of each animal was on the Ark, or 7 of each animal (1 male and 6 females). I'm not changing the subject, I'm just trying to make a point by using your own argument on something you believe in that I believe is a lie.

by Anonymous 13 years ago