aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.Originally Posted by Evil liberals
aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.
Elaborate, please. From what I've heard, the evolutionary theory is almost flawless when it comes to the fundamental ideas.
Why?
Holy crap, if random mutations and natural selection can make changes within a generation...if a population is split for some reason (natural disaster, migration, etc.), the two new populations could eventually become so different as to be unable to breed, and become completely different species!
We've also witnessed speciation. Oh, and there is no definite line where "macroevolution" starts. It's scientifically defined as "changes [microevolution] to a population over time." So microevolution logically entails macro.
EDIT:
HahahahahahahahahahaI'm an Evolutionist.
My god is Evolutio the Destroyer. Bow before his All-Mighty Flaming Nostrils.
What liberals refuse to see is that there IS evidence supporting a theory of Intelligent Design. And WHO is closed-minded?
And if you can believe that every population has split enough, and stayed apart long enough, to produce the millions upon millions of species we have on this planet...well then, I guess Evolutionism is perfect for you. There's no way of explaining Evolution without using "if this, and if that, and if this, then maybe, possibly, this or that could happen."
And macroevolution is changing from one species to another. That's the line. But not only is microevolution not that fast, it would require many billion years, not just the one billion or so "scientists" speculate the earth's been able to sustain life.
Last edited by Sasquatch; 09-30-2005 at 11:39 PM.
True, they are theories but:aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.
1. They have a large amount of evidence to support them
2. There is no other theory that can even come close to explaining what they do.
While creationism, on the other hand:
1. Has no real, scientific proof
2. Is based upon the stories of a nomadic desert people
3. Pre-dates iron-working (i.e. is outdated)
4. Is not generally accepted by scientists as a credible scientific theory
Thank god someone sane minded conservative has realized this! There is evidence to support intelligent design, and evolution is a theory, therefore intelligent design holds more weight than evolution. It says so DIRECTLY in the bible, but you dirty liberals shun that text of gospel truth!!!What liberals refuse to see is that there IS evidence supporting a theory of Intelligent Design. And WHO is closed-minded?
XDDDDDDude, Dinosaurs are a myth. They are a lie conceived by communist left and the evil liberals to decieve people into believing in absurd concepts like science. The whole liberal agenda is one that focuses solely on the removal of god from society. Everything they do is a means to acheive that sinister goal. Believers be on gaurd... the liberals are here.
I knew there was something they weren't telling me in kindergarten.
Leave some shards under the belly
Lay some grease inside my hand
It's a sentimental jury
And the makings of a good plan
See, this is the thing with closed minded liberals like yourself! You present your argument as if I had to actually listen to you. I'm not listening to you.True, they are theories but:aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.
1. They have a large amount of evidence to support them
2. There is no other theory that can even come close to explaining what they do.
While creationism, on the other hand:
1. Has no real, scientific proof
2. Is based upon the stories of a nomadic desert people
3. Pre-dates iron-working (i.e. is outdated)
4. Is not generally accepted by scientists as a credible scientific theory
Gosh, and there was me thinking it was because they have no tolerance for other people's opinions and views (unless they're a minority group because their opinions are always infinitely better than those of the majority!) despite preaching that they do and that they're better people because of it. But now I know it's all because they're anti-god and not because they're hypocrites. Y'learn something every day at Eyes on FF!
Actually, no, there isn't any proof, at least in a scientific sense. Maybe philosophically, but that is different altogether.
I would also like to question why liberalism and conservatism have entered the argument- they are almost entirely un-related to the philosophical and scientific core of this argument.
One question:
But, by your standards, creationism has only evidence, not conclusive proof, just as evolutionism does. This makes absolutely no sense. Hypocrit.There is evidence to support intelligent design, and evolution is a theory, therefore intelligent design holds more weight than evolution.
Why do only right-wingers say that? You don't see socialists yelling 'God is against the holy teachings of Das Kapital! Heretic!'It says so DIRECTLY in the bible, but you dirty liberals shun that text of gospel truth!!
Psy, you're getting "liberal" and "democrat" confused...alot of people tend to lately.Gosh, and there was me thinking it was because they have no tolerance for other people's opinions and views (unless they're a minority group because their opinions are always infinitely better than those of the majority!) despite preaching that they do and that they're better people because of it. But now I know it's all because they're anti-god and not because they're hypocrites. Y'learn something every day at Eyes on FF!
I like Kung-Fu.
This would be an instant EoEO ban had it been posted there; outside of that forum, however, there isn't much we can do.How many people have gotten banned for much less than this?
I believe in God. I don't believe in strict literal interpretations of the Bible, though.
1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
Traitorfish: Nit0tine is being sarcastic. I'm surpr......well, no, I'm not really surprised you haven't realized that. But just to let you know, he's mocking his idea of...whatever the hell he's trying to mock.
So do most people who label themselves liberal, so I just go with the flow.
1. Like what? DOnt say 'Bible'.1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
2. Then your ignorant- the Israelis were nomadic for millenia before settling down. The Greeks and Romans only adopted Christianty later- they had their own, even more absurd, creation theories.
3. Err... Yeah it does. It claims that the earth is flat, the sky is water, and that the stars are trap-doors opened by angels to let the water (from the sky) in, to make rain. It's WAY off.
4.Science's veiw of 'supenatural power' is irrelevant. I'm not disputing the existence of God, as such, but the scientific basis of creationism. God does not nessecarilly entail Intelligent Design.
Posting Permissions
