OK, you clearly do not know what natural selection entails. And I doubt you know anything about science.
This was supposed to be in response to gbrooks
OK, you clearly do not know what natural selection entails. And I doubt you know anything about science.
This was supposed to be in response to gbrooks
I would say the same about Creationists who intentionally mislead ignorant readers with citations from obsolete research!
Yesā¦ Key word being intentionally.
Why did you just say that to me out of nowhere? I havent conversed with you in days
[@T.j_Runyon, he probably just launched his post while reading yours.]
My understanding rrgarding Science HAS to be better than yours if you go around telling the world most scientists are wrong. Follow me?
Thatās not necessarily trueā¦ understand Science and agreeing with it are two different thingsā¦
And the one man semantic battle continues?
Technically you may be correct.
But when a new church member explains why he had to quit the last 30 churches he was attending ā¦ the odds are the problem is with the complainerā¦ not the 30 churches (or 30 scientists!).
George,
There are hundreds of Christian denominations out thereā¦ I am sure you and I disagree with more than 30 on various issuesā¦ Thatās not an argument to say you are wrongā¦
Barbarian! The best soft drink is Ale Eight Ginger Ale, closely followed by Dr. Pepper.
Actually thousands (perhaps a much as 10,000 denominations) in the US alone.
If in your country a political faction intentionally distorted facts to eliminate the whole OFFICE of Prime Ministerā¦
How well do you think that faction would be treated?