- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 21,781
- Reaction score
- 2,396
Apparently they all need someone to be leader of the base. So I think I'm going to assassinate you soon. Just a heads up.
Alright then. Just a heads up I'm going to tax you into a box.
Apparently they all need someone to be leader of the base. So I think I'm going to assassinate you soon. Just a heads up.
Alright then. Just a heads up I'm going to tax you into a box.
Jokes on you, I'm already in a box Hahaha. . .wait.
"evolution is not a scientific fact!!!!! has it ever been proven?? NO!! Were you there when the earth was created?? NO!! Was anyone there when the earth was created?? NO!! How can you say this is fact? There is absolutely no way to prove this THEORY therefore it is NOT a fact is simply a belief."
Pure utter rage or just amazement or maybe you will kindly explain?
Since exact details, mechanisms and blah blah blah are rather complex, confusing and some aspects still under discussion.... u cant really expect non-experts (especially voluntary ones') to understand or discuss that. But its the young earthers, the geocentric group and the flat earthers that drives me to the limit of my patience and tolerance.....
No one believes the earth is flat anymore ahahaha XD !
You can make anything "consistent" with evolution.The theory is so malleable that the only real thing evolving is the theory itself.
Checkmate !No one believes the earth is flat anymore ahahaha XD !
*Crawls out from rock.*
The world isn't flat?!
I will beat you with a banana !To be fair, all science can ever do about the past is draw inferences. If I look outside and see that the road is wet, I infer that it has rained. But I cannot prove that to be the case without direct observation. I can give evidence to resolve the most probable explanation given the known factors - but that's all that can be done.
That said, I think people tend to be too stupid for their own good, when it comes to scientific discussions.
On one hand, most people I've encountered in discussion supporting Evolution tend to operate purely off of dogma. They regurgitate a text book and/or the correct answers they put onto a test one year, and that's the depth of their knowledge.
On the other hand, a lot of the creationists I've run into want to be ridiculously set on "things had to 'poof.'" In doing so, they tend to cheapen the value of the interesting findings that they use to support their argument. Then you even get a few others who want to argue that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Most individuals on either 'side' of the discussion do not display much in the way of an intelligent understanding of their 'side.' One side just happens to have course cirriculum on its side to make it feel like they are more intelligent for repeating their strain of dogma.
*** was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that?
*** was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that?