Your account of a pink unicorn would only be nonsensical testimony if you were a liar.
If it was an event that really happened,
and we could see thousands of others who had experienced the same thing, well, a logical person would not dismiss it.
However that would require a (logical person) that did not have a built in bias.
As for your belief that Evolution is based on hard evidence, that's a joke.
The fact is, more Americans believe in UFOs then Evolution.
Most of the evidence that has been presented for Evolution has been shown to be either faked, or misunderstood.
And the fossil record still remains the biggest embarrassment for Evolution.
I believe dinosaurs existed just thousands of years ago because we have depictions of then in ancient art.
This is art has shown up in places all over the world. Yet believers in Evolution refuse to believe what they can see with their own eyes.
And they do this, because they are the real ones that believe in fables.
The art work is hard evidence.
Your theories of speculation, and assumptions, do not count for hard evidence.
Assumptions and speculation is the only foundation for Evolution.
Christians have fulfilled prophecies, and historical records that agree with the Bible, Evolution has nothing like this.
To be a true believer in Evolution, it requires you to be a blind faith believer. It also requires that have the ability to ignore, filter out, or deny facts that are presented from the other side.
and if i believed my story would it be any more valid?
that's a big [SIZE="4"]IF[/SIZE]
Unless it was a social phenomena then the mass reportings would be easily explained.
You have your bias as well do I.
I have still yet to hear a single explanation of endogenous retriviral remnants, from ANY creationist EVER despite the many times I've brought it up and over the many years i've been arguing it. Their mysterious silence on this most convincing evidence speak volumes.
Unfortunately truth isn't determined by a consensus of popular opinion.
...or so you claim! But you have failed to demonstrate how.
like the archeopteryx? Something creationists claimed would never be found? Or the Australopithecus? Which creationists claimed would never be found and some still deny it. or the Darwin deathbed recantation, which is still circulated today by creationists even though it is a known falsehood? Or the human-Dino footprint which is also a known fraud yet is still circulated by creationists? Or creationists who use radio-carbon dating to date things that "HAVE NO CARBON IN IT!"?
But the big difference here is that all of the "evolutionist" hoaxes have been debunked by other evolutionists whereas creationist hoaxes have been debunked by evolutionists.
fraudulent. do you have any genuine evidence?
like the homo Neanderthal?
fables including talking snakes?
Art by definition is the antonym of science.
and DNA evidence is speculation?
Like making a conclusion before finding evidence? creationists have already concluded that the bible and everything in it is true, the is antithetical to open-mindedness and is entirely unscientific, so they must find evidence that fits their preconceived conclusion.
Most evolutionists are Christians.
Deny things like ERVs, mitochondrial DNA, relative fossil placement, known cases of speciation etc...?
Evolutionary biologist Dolph Schluter and others have discovered that the region contains two species of stickleback, one with a large mouth that feeds on large prey close to shore, the other with a small mouth that feeds on plankton in open water. Both species jointly inhabit five different lakes. Through DNA analysis, scientists have determined that the lakes were colonized independently by common marine ancestors, meaning that the process of sympatric speciation between the two varieties had to have occurred independently at least five times. This seems to indicate a situation of competition for resources that favored stickleback species at either extreme of size, as opposed to those of medium size and medium-sized mouths.
and if i believed my story would it be any more valid?
that's a big [SIZE="4"]IF[/SIZE]
Unless it was a social phenomena then the mass reportings would be easily explained.
You have your bias as well do I.
I have still yet to hear a single explanation of endogenous retriviral remnants, from ANY creationist EVER despite the many times I've brought it up and over the many years i've been arguing it. Their mysterious silence on this most convincing evidence speak volumes.
Unfortunately truth isn't determined by a consensus of popular opinion.
...or so you claim! But you have failed to demonstrate how.
like the archeopteryx? Something creationists claimed would never be found? Or the Australopithecus? Which creationists claimed would never be found and some still deny it. or the Darwin deathbed recantation, which is still circulated today by creationists even though it is a known falsehood? Or the human-Dino footprint which is also a known fraud yet is still circulated by creationists? Or creationists who use radio-carbon dating to date things that "HAVE NO CARBON IN IT!"?
But the big difference here is that all of the "evolutionist" hoaxes have been debunked by other evolutionists whereas creationist hoaxes have been debunked by evolutionists.
fraudulent. do you have any genuine evidence?
like the homo Neanderthal?
fables including talking snakes?
Art by definition is the antonym of science.
and DNA evidence is speculation?
Like making a conclusion before finding evidence? creationists have already concluded that the bible and everything in it is true, the is antithetical to open-mindedness and is entirely unscientific, so they must find evidence that fits their preconceived conclusion.
Most evolutionists are Christians.
Deny things like ERVs, mitochondrial DNA, relative fossil placement, known cases of speciation etc...?
Evolutionary biologist Dolph Schluter and others have discovered that the region contains two species of stickleback, one with a large mouth that feeds on large prey close to shore, the other with a small mouth that feeds on plankton in open water. Both species jointly inhabit five different lakes. Through DNA analysis, scientists have determined that the lakes were colonized independently by common marine ancestors, meaning that the process of sympatric speciation between the two varieties had to have occurred independently at least five times. This seems to indicate a situation of competition for resources that favored stickleback species at either extreme of size, as opposed to those of medium size and medium-sized mouths.
Archeopteryx? Something creationists claimed would never be found?
You must believe that Archeopteryx is a transional.
Your going to have to come up to speed on this one, because todays science now points out that it is (not a transional). It is an extinct bird, and nothing more.
So the search for an obvious transional continues. And on this one the creationist were correct.
A mass reporting of UFOs is not easily explained, especially when they appear on radar screens at the same time. One recent case occured over Belgium, and they were triangular-shaped, and seen by both military personal and civilians, and detected on military radar. Recordings on (radar) showed these objects making fantastic maneuvers at incredibly high speeds that are far beyond the capabilities of conventional aircraft.
The reasons creationists believe the Bible to be true, is because there has never been any evidence presented to suggest it was not, and as time passes, historical discoveries only show all the more the accuracy of the written Word.
well technically all fossils are transitional, but i won't get into details.
Actually it is more reptilian than it is bird, in fact when scientists first found it they thought it was a dinosaur. Archaeopteryx had feathers and wings, but it also had teeth and a skeleton similar to a small carnivorous dinosaur, its features were reptilian, with jaws lined with sharp teeth, three 'fingers' ending in curved claws and a long bony tail. These features, which are consistent with theropod dinosaurs. For instance, it has a long ascending process of the ankle bone, interdental plates, an obturator process of the ischium, and long chevrons in the tail. In particular, Ostrom found that Archaeopteryx was remarkably similar to the theropod family Dromaeosauridae.
doesn't look like it.
This prove there is little green men?
negative evidence fallacy.
