Posted on 01/23/2006 4:31:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
If given the chance, I never run out of arguments. I can debate anyone at any level.
It's not an absolute rejection- certainly not- We are all evolving in one way or another as we speak. Our bodies are being damaged by radiation, we are eating this or that, we are making choices every half second, etc. But did we have a common ancestor with apes? No, I don't agree.
And most imprtantly- I repeat-- I sleepy. night night.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If you make it up as you go along, use deception, fraud, lies and libel, sure anyone can "never run out of arguments."
I can debate anyone at any level
No you can't Debate means an exchange of arguments supported by evidence. "Because I said So" isn't a debate. Being caught in multiple lies automatically disqualifies you in a Debate.
Yes, Darwin did recant his evolution theory and came back to God.
This is history.
As soon as I find the links, I'll post them here.
You can, in the meantime, research it on your own so that we can concurrently confirm his contrition.
Thanks.
Are they salmons?
>I don't believe anyone who repeatedly lies.
Neither do I.
>One truth in a pack of lies doesn't turn the lies into truth nor the liar into an honest person.
Excellent point. And I agree with it.
Yes, Darwin did recant his evolution theory and came back to God.
This is history.
No, that's a lie.
A lie so patently false and indefensible that even creationist organizations are ashamed to use it. And that's saying something.
As soon as I find the links, I'll post them here.
You keep insisting this, but somehow can't manage to find any evidence to support your falsehoods. Funny how that works.
Maybe you think that if you keep putting off defending your "mis-statements," people will forget to call you on them. You'll find that isn't the case - fabricators aren't frequently let off the hook.
IOW, you can't justify your dishonest change of subject.
You're both wrong. The sound of thunder is actually God bowling a strike.
TB: According to evolution we should, but we ain't never seen them.
Could you please document where in the Theory of Evolution this is postulated? (or cite a single biologist who said anything like this).
And while you're at it, what do you think of a half-bird, half-dinosaur like Archeopteryx?
Thanks for the ping!
"As soon as I find the links, I'll post them here."
You may want to begin by reviewing the research of Jack Chick.
LOL
Reminds me of a Jewish girl I knew in the '60s. I was reading the paper and said something about the Archbishop of Canterbuty, "Primate of England". She couldn't stop laughing - the only meaing of primate she knew was the zoological one.
No, not recently. I have to find one that doesn't have as much gratuitous cleavage as the last time...
Did Jack Chick repeat the Lady Hope lie?
I haven't done it yet, but the other day I was thinking we should say "The Sin Hermeneutic Perspicuity.", Sin of Equivocation, Sin of Begging the Question, etc.
Employing fallacies in order to deceive is a form of lying, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.