Reply With Quote
Uh oh....
Lets make a quick list of posters that think/know you are in deep bovine residue.
Or not.
Nah. Creationism by itself isn't bound to argue against evolution. It's too easy to prove speciation for that to be the case. The debate is netween the origins of life the big-E Evolution vs creationism. That's where evolutionist tend to be disingenuous. Litte-e evolution is as rock-solid as gravity. Big-E Evolution is much less solid. It's definitely still the theory we should go with, but it's not strong enough to believe something better can't come along.
Uh oh....
Lets make a quick list of posters that think/know you are in deep bovine residue.
Or not.
Religion is stupid. I'm pretty sure I have said so a few times already. It's epistemologically irresponsible to take a religious text as hard evidence. That's not the same as believing the universe was set into motion by something more than nothing.
If evolution is 100 percent fact, it shouldn't be a theory. I don't think humans came from old school monkeys but I think birds came from dinosaurs. changes but I just don't think humans came from monkeys. Just not buyin it pal.
We have some good ideas on how life might have began. But no one has started from scratch in any experiment I know of.
Sure something better can come along, but if it's poof we have life, it's not science.
I really did not think the above was the initial debate.
I have to admire how Christ s just power through the rational explanations to their dumb questions. You were given the explanation, yet you completely ignored it, just like robdiaz would do.
So we were specially created? But organisms that basically work just like we do biochemically did not. Which means every other living thing. And we don't think humans came from monkeys. Where did you learn such misconceptions?
It's not in theory. But it's what the debate is functionally.
we came from a fish that magically sprang some sort of walking fins over millions of years and then turned into a rat that evolved into a monkey. makes perfect sense tbh
Waiting NOLy ...
No lie... The irony.
and lol @ your childish "christ " insults
This is funny, because it actually makes a ton of sense.
It is my opinion. Take it or leave ass s.
Jesus...
Someone got into PeeWee's playhouse and was tickled by the lobotomy toy.
You have to be trolling. You type " got" so many times I'm surprised our fingers still function. I still haven't seen you spit a valid argument.
lol got
Bull and you know it.
Lol, no it's not. Its actually really easy to support this by looking at bones.
Clint Eastwood gives us two options boys.
Seriously, I thought it was your shoe's opinion, but it's really yours. Sorry man.
No just no.
Fossils?
He jumped a bit from the fish to a rat.
I imagine you've never done so yourself, then? It's not even that advanced of stuff. You just and to look at two skeletons and match them up. A coelacanth's skeleton is pretty similar to ours.
The problem with debates about creationism is that if you are on the science side, you have to debate at least two types of creationism.
The first type of creationism is one that states that if something exists than something/someone must have created it. This is an extremely reasonable conclusion that people who believe in science have a hard time admitting, but that is mostly because of the second type of creationism that always seems to find its way into this first type. An admission of this first type of creationism unfairly admits defeat to the second kind of creationism.
This second type of creationism is the one that states the world is only thousands of years old. While we have scientific evidence that this is not the case, it simply cannot be proven. Creationists, who argue this point, use that lack of proof as proof for their own argument.
This leads to the question “What is proof?” We can never actually prove anything. As someone who believes in the power of science, this is a difficult but true thing to say. The scientific method leads us to conclusions that we can reasonably assume. For example, eating healthy foods leads to a healthy body and a longer life is a conclusion that many scientist can only reasonably assume. We see how the human body’s cells react when proper nutrition is applied to these cells, but how do we actually know that it is the nutrition that causes this? We only assume this. There are at least some examples where we see people who eat poorly and live long lives. While it would be better to err on the side of healthy eating, these anomalies show that nutrition is a dynamic phenomenon that scientists are continuing to try to understand. That is the complexity of science. This complexity, however, is sometimes perceived as ambiguity.
This ambiguity, unfortunately, does not do well in arguments, especially against a creationist, who supposedly knows the truth.
Nope. Extant species are good enough support to understand why the theory makes sense. Fossils help add support to why you should believe it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions