Problems with RJ Hinds:

Originally posted by joe shmo
Can we all agree that making any type of conjecture about the existence of a "god" by way of the scientific method is ridiculous. Creationism is a belief, as is any claim that a "god" exists or does not exist made by any "scientist".

I personally feel that "belief" is the "cause", and "science" is the "effect" and that an "effect" without a "cause", and a "cause" without an "effect", are nothing.

I think it's perfectly fair to say that as long as science don't require a god-explanation, it's
reasonable to assume no such entity exists.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[evolution] is supposed to explain how all the different species of life originated [...] This is stupid and makes absolutely no sense.

And yet you keep failing in showing how this is so. Your insipid creationist propaganda is
no match for even amateur level biology.

Originally posted by C Hess
I think it's perfectly fair to say that as long as science don't require a god-explanation, it's
reasonable to assume no such entity exists.

yes, both because of that and because of Occam's razor although there is a subtle link between the two here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is nothing wrong with RJHinds. He believes the truth can't possibly be the stupid evolution theory, which is contrary to the observable science. He believes that design in nature is not just the appearance of design as evolutionists claim, but is real design that can only be explained by an extremely intelligent designer as the cause. He also belie ...[text shortened]... truth about the science concerning evolution being just a belief and not proven scientific fact.

You hit it on the nose with word number 8: Believes. That is a blatant admission there is ZERO science in your stance, only the desire to KILL several scientific disciplines in your frothing at the mouth zeal to force creationism on school children in a science classroom.

As much as you deny it, you are not interested in real science. You are ONLY interested in forcing creationism and young Earth on people.

You don't understand the goals or methods of science, you only want to subvert the findings of 300 years of solid scientific advancement to your own sick ends.

Originally posted by C Hess
I think it's perfectly fair to say that as long as science don't require a god-explanation, it's
reasonable to assume no such entity exists.

I think its only scientifically reasonable to ignore, as a question, the existence of any such entity in its entirety.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You hit it on the nose with word number 8: Believes. That is a blatant admission there is ZERO science in your stance, only the desire to KILL several scientific disciplines in your frothing at the mouth zeal to force creationism on school children in a science classroom.

As much as you deny it, you are not interested in real science. You are ONLY intere ...[text shortened]... want to subvert the findings of 300 years of solid scientific advancement to your own sick ends.

There are many lies that are presented as proof or evidence of evolution. The following video presents just a few of these lies:

YouTube

The person presenting these does not actually call them lies, however, anyone that critically considers them should be able to see that they are lies. I can present other videos with more lies of evolution if you are still in doubt.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many lies that are presented as proof or evidence of evolution. The following video presents just a few of these lies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHNnFiExGT8

The person presenting these does not actually call them lies, however, anyone that critically considers them should be able to see that they are lies. I can present other videos with more lies of evolution if you are still in doubt.

You go off topic. That's why even you know that you are wrong. It's a part of your rhetorics.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You go off topic. That's why even you know that you are wrong. It's a part of your rhetorics.

It is not off topic that I wish for educators to present the true facts of science to everyone, instead of the lies that evolution does.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not off topic that I wish for educators to present the true facts of science to everyone, instead of the lies that evolution does.

To repeat "it's a lie, it's a lie" a hundred times, does not make it a lie. You actually have to
show how evolutionary theory is a lie, using something that scientists can't dismiss as
any of the following:

1. Quote mining
2. Old information not used to support evolutionary theory
3. Misrepresentation of the facts or the theory
4. Personal opinion

If you can show how evolutionary theory is wrong without using any other tactic than to
present up to date scientific evidence, we would all drop the theory like a salmon gone bad.

Originally posted by C Hess
To repeat "it's a lie, it's a lie" a hundred times, does not make it a lie. You actually have to
show how evolutionary theory is a lie, using something that scientists can't dismiss as
any of the following:

1. Quote mining
2. Old information not used to support evolutionary theory
3. Misrepresentation of the facts or the theory
4. Personal op ...[text shortened]... o
present up to date scientific evidence, we would all drop the theory like a salmon gone bad.

I wish that was true, but it is not. Parts of evolution has already been proven false by scientists for years, and other parts of it has never been proven true by scientists and it is still being presented as truth by all the evolution liars. The only parts that are true are those parts that were already known as something else and then hijacked under the new evolution name and is sometimes called microevolution now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I wish that was true, but it is not. Parts of evolution has already been proven false by scientists for years, and other parts of it has never been proven true by scientists and it is still being presented as truth by all the evolution liars. The only parts that are true are those parts that were already known as something else and then hijacked under the new evolution name and is sometimes called microevolution now.

Specifics, if you will. Remember, none of the above tactics, but scientific evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
Specifics, if you will. Remember, none of the above tactics, but scientific evidence.

I have been giving the specifics for years, but apparently all evolutionists refuse to pay attention or just outright refuse to believe the facts. I have no objection to you believing in evolution if you wish, however, I think it is wrong to tell kids that it is science, rather than just an opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have been giving the specifics for years, but apparently all evolutionists refuse to pay attention or just outright refuse to believe the facts. I have no objection to you believing in evolution if you wish, however, I think it is wrong to tell kids that it is science, rather than just an opinion.

I'm asking you for specifics right now. Not slander. Not outdated material. Not long-since
disproven "facts". Not quote mines. Specific up to date scientific evidence to prove that the
evolutionary theory is a lie.

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm asking you for specifics right now. Not slander. Not outdated material. Not long-since
disproven "facts". Not quote mines. Specific up to date scientific evidence to prove that the
evolutionary theory is a lie.

So you just want to ignore the old stuff that has been proven wrong and is still being used as science facts? That sounds very convenient for evolutionists to be able to continually lie over and over even when their old lies have been found out. I don't see how you can trust such people.

I don't know what material you consider new. However, it usually takes some time to discover and prove the frauds. So I am not sure if there are any frauds that have been disproved recently enough for you. But why don't you just show me your recent evidence that supposedly proves evolution? Then perhaps I will have something for you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you just want to ignore the old stuff that has been proven wrong and is still being used as science facts

Just one. Just one example of a piece of evidence that is used to support evolution, and is
used by scientists as a fact, when in fact it's been shown to be false.