What kind of ****ing idiot rejects Evolution? :lol:
Someone on this forum said that it isn't between those who accept evolution and those who don't, but rather between those who know what it is and those who don't. That was completely true as I've never met a person who denied evolution and could accurately say in their own words what it meant.
Unfortunately, it's not necessarily true. There are plenty of people who know exactly what it is but the religious mental poison in their heads keeps them from dealing with actual reality in favor of the religious fantasy that they wish were true.
If you say so. I've NEVER heard a creationist accurately define evolution.
Someone on this forum said that it isn't between those who accept evolution and those who don't, but rather between those who know what it is and those who don't. That was completely true as I've never met a person who denied evolution and could accurately say in their own words what it meant.
no but i dont reject creationism either
I am a logical thinker, and evolution is logical. So I Don't reject it.
I do not reject evolution.
Far too much evidence presented; accepted by the general scientific community; No counter evidence of significance presented, as far as I know.
What makes Creationism believable?
What makes Creationism believable?
What makes Creationism believable?
The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we.ve seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example.
There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us.
At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
Science has been noted as saying that your DNA is a "blueprint". What does the dictionary say about "blueprint"? Design.
blue·print
/ˈblo͞oˌprint/ n. 1. a design plan or other technical drawing.
synonyms: plan, design, diagram, drawing, sketch, map, layout, representation
The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we've seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example.
There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us. At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
Prove it...
Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
Seems to me that legitimate scientific observations and experimental results are incorporated even if they don't initially match the status quo.
A fine example is the now generally accepted asteroid strike that extincted the dinosaurs.
Before, there were a number of competing theories about what extincted the dinosaurs, pestilence, climate change among others. The Alverazes (father and son) discovered that the layer of deposited soil at the KT boundary contained an unusually high amount of Iridium, normally not found on the Earth, but prevalent in asteroids. This layer is present across wide areas on the Earth. Still not generally accepted at this point. Then the 100 mile wide impact crater was found off of the Yucatán peninsula below the ocean. These two things and probably some others, and now the asteroid strike is now generally accepted as what extincted the dinosaurs.
Which scientific data are you asserting is being suppressed?
It's not possible to prove either way. But if you take some time and study the plant and animal kingdom, particularly the intricacies of design that is evident in the functions of the human body, and its micro mechanisms that go on without you even knowing it, you find intelligent design, and if you are reasonable and rational in your thinking, you'll find it difficult to believe that a DNA "blueprint" of design was created by "random selection" or chance. How is a one-celled organism going to randomly select anything if it doesn't think? Randomly select what? Who offers the "selection" from which to choose from? Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?