[I never attacked you I am questioning your actions. If you believe that's an attack then I feel sorry for you. You should be old enough to know better.
You didn't provide a link {to the site that said a human footprint was found that's older than when humans first evolved} so there's no credibility in your post.]
Darwin never posted links.
44 comments
Great comeback coadie.
Dolt.
The thread surrounding this quote is very odd - it's about the discovery in late 2007 of a "human" (per Reuters) footprint that could be 2 million years old. It's in Egypt somewhere.
Coadie can be knocked back a thousand times on poor creation non-science facts(heavy on the creation, non-existent on the science) found in his quotes that are easily disproved and ignore the fact of the obvious multiple flasehoods. But he gloms onto one questionable, poorly written news report about a discovery that didn't pan out (with obviously bad science inserted by the writer) as proof of all evolution being based on lies. What a hypocritical bozo.
When you're as dead as Darwin, you can use the same excuse. But, for now, put up or shut up. (Preferably the latter because you'll find the former impossible to do.)
If this were a joke, it'd have been a good one, unfortunately I'm pretty sure coadie's already been quoted here, so it was likely serious, and thus, failure.
Now if you had said Darwin never provided links, it may have been somewhat funny. Stupid, but worth a snicker to other creationists.
But since your a complete idiot, I doubt that that was the route you were going anyway.
The Internet didn't exist in the 1860s, thus evolution is untrue?
Dubya-tee-eff to the max.
Also, does this mean the J-man has got the Heavenly Webbernetz Up There somewhere?
You know who else never posts links? Ever single fundie on CARM. You, Carico, T&T, you guys never post links and never give sources and talk about the most inane shit.
Well, Darwin did something even better:
Meticulous research, followed by publishing books.
For example, he made the first diligent scientific examination of insect-eating plants, and published his results in a book "Carnivorous plants". At a time when religionists still denied the existence of carnivorous plants, because "Genesis states that plants are to provide nutrition for men and animal, not the other way round. Carnivorous plants cannot exist because that would be blasphemous".
Do carnivorous plants exist? Who was right? Darwin or the religionists?
"Darwin never posted links. "
true but WUT ?
Darwin 1859 , limited Internet resources, may have waited for Dialup in his area.
That gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "missing links"...
Darwin never posted links.
1. How do you know that, where you there?
2. You know what he did instead: He studied his subjects for decades and then he wrote whole books about it!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
