Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingas10
Yes, discuss it while trying to make the opposing view look stupid. It happens, people like to bully on these things. Just don't get caught in the minority, you'll really get picked on.
|
thanks blaster. He is on to something. not all of it, but, definitely something.
And, who is this Steve person? I don't recall ever seeing him. I heard some things about him, but, I don't know him personally. He was probably misunderstood. I peeked. And, his rants were long. Too long, and, too wordy. He might have been a troll
It's a brand new world, so, a Brand New song is in order.
Nice to meet you blastingas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA
The moment that article cited an argument against evolution from Ann Coulter as "persuasive" it lost all credibility. What a joke.
Evolution is not a theory, it's as close to fact as it can possibly be. It doesn't take "faith in science" to see that. Read a god damn book and it becomes obvious.
|
Okay genius. Read a blankety blank book. It's called a dictionary. If the term evolution was not coined until the 19th century to mean things changing over time; Why does it appear in 1615 give or take 4 years? And, is defined as 'the unrolling of a book or books. Or, unfolding something that was previously folded up'?
No, it is still called a theory. And, then to say 'it's as close to fact as it possibly can be', means It's not a fact.
Read a blankety blank book, and it does become obvious. Things changed in 1611, and, you might to stop placing all that 'faith in science'. Oh, you don't have to you say. It doesn't take faith.
Best be grabbing some in something. Because, this definitely 'inane', 'pointless', 'null and void', and 'empty-headed' ignorance.
What a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Just noticed this bit here :
And I have to say, as a biologist, the evidence seems is rather overwhelming. It has been accepted as scientific truth a long time ago. That means evolution is true in the same way we understand the world is not flat. Our modern understanding of life would crumble if evolution was ever disproven, but it never has been and the proof keeps piling on.
So I think the burden of proof should be on you and so I ask you, why do you believe there's zero evidence to support evolution?
|
There is evidence to support it. It's not zero, but, it is not absolute fact. They are still missing a couple few links from primate to homo. They cannot prove beyond doubt, so, it remains a theory.
'Everything dissolves, or is restored into the root of its own nature alone'
You might find the modern understanding of life just may crumble. And, depending on what you believe concerning the archetypes, you may find yourself at the root of that nature. Or, possibly a quark. But, it won't take as long, so, I am told. But, don't believe me or the source of that information. I could take longer. Who knows? The burden of proof has to be placed on something that has no absolute proof. That's a nugget.
Since so many appear to be scientists, here's one. My Chemical Romance.
Except the idea that you may be immortal.
I'm impressed
