Recent content by YesYouNeedJesus

That's where I have a problem. The evolutionists have been so adamant that when you look at the physical characteristics (the skull for example) it is blatantly obvious what evolved from what. A guy on a video I have called people idiots for not believing the whale evolution exhibit at the...

It also appears analysis of the skull leads to a third interpretation of the ancestry.

Thanks for understanding.

Sorry guys, I've been slammed. I tried getting on every day and respond to everything one at a time, but it gets too overwhelming. This is my biggest complaint about visiting atheist sites. They gang up on you 10-1. I'm not too concerned with the ratio, as I am with the time it then takes to...

James, you're killing me here. :) The full quote you provided expounds on Part A of my original quote, whereas I was emphasizing Part B. I was not quote-mining at all. Your longer quote gives 2 reasons for their uneasiness to state in public that the origin of life is a mystery. But that does...

Ah yes, the morphological similarities. You may have noticed this paragraph to hwin: "Your position is a moving target and completely arbitrary. Is it physical characteristics that help us create the tree of life? Is it DNA? Or is it RNA? Or how about proteins? Or maybe it's fossil layers? It's...

True or False? I provided a paper by Walter Remine and I also provided a paper by Russell Humphreys.

I guess we're done. "Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled." Miller research '"¦ suggests that given the primordial soup, with the right combination of amino acids and nucleic acids...

On Feb. 20th, at 4:42pm, I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper for Hytegia since he cried foul over Remine. (And he never reviewed that paper either, as he promised to do.) On Feb. 20th, at 5:39pm, Hytegia requested that the thread be locked for no reason. On Feb. 20th, at 6:30pm...

Just give me the top two. Exactly my point. "Special creation" and origins are inextricably mixed. Pretty shocked to see you put Stanley Miller in the list. Especially since their experiment has done more to show that abiogenesis is impossible than possible. "Many investigators feel uneasy...

I'm not his employee. I once was. You should be careful about claiming someone dodges questions. If I post on PZ Myers site and he doesn't respond, should I claim he dodges questions? Where is the evidence of this? What are the assumptions? How is the layer dated? I'm not a geologist...

Which was? In your completely arbitrary definition of "Scientist" you confused origins with neo-Darwinism. Creationists believe the origin of life (and the universe) was specially created, which you say does not make them a scientist. Isaac Newton also believed this. And you claim that if...

He didn't give evidence. He's intelligent and I would assume that he came to his conclusion based on evidence and not blind faith. But maybe you think less of him than I do?

Wait a minute. Lawrence Krauss agreed that dinosaur soft tissue has been found and you didn't care because he's not a biologist. His claim was based on the evidence that he's seen. You seem to have a double standard here.

What evidence!?! Evolutionists think that if they invent a theory that's possible, that means it happened that way. Neo-darwinism is just the flavor of the year. If we were having this talk in the 19th century, your definition of scientist would be anyone who does not support "special creation"...