Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[as678]

Quote from Eight:

LOL That's how a belief system is built. They start off in grammar school and tell you "the teacher is smarter so she must be right" and they continue on with it... oh, and, don't forget to never question the teacher, you won't get a good grade!!

Oh yeah... never mind Sunday school where they keep teaching out of the same outdated book. Don't question the good book or you'll go to hell!

What is with the whole "believe the teacher or get a bad grade" thing? High school teachers are not very bright. If the student has a brain they can tell if the teacher is bullshitting. By the time you get to college the textbooks become A) more accurate B) more detailed. The teachers are only there to clarify and elaborate about things.

Unlike the Sunday School book, biology textbooks contain peer-reviewed information. Anything you find in a college-level textbook has been known for at least 10 years. People have tested it and retested the material to see if it actually holds to to scrutiny.

You see, scientists are in the business of disproving other scientist's findings. Those findings that cannot be disproved go to the textbooks.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Jem, it's like information that you don't like bounces right off you. Zero absorption. You are truly information proof.

More than a few here think the same of you.

 

[acronym]

Quote from jem:

so what are you saying darwin stands for.
if you point is that things change over time, not many will disagree with you.

if you are saying life evolved from non life... you are outside science.

Quite the contrary. Darwin could not have been aware of quantum physics, and it's strange machinations. Nor genetics, chromosomes or anything else.

Darwin was just a guy, who had a great , provable theory.
Perhaps you are aware, he did not want to publish his origin of species, precisely because he knew the god botherers would go berzerk over it, in an orgiastic fit of indignation and total, complete lack of rationale.

Convergent evolution, is something I am interested in however......but I'm not about to listen to a god botherer to explain that god just "made" entirely new species, AFTER he made the entire planet, perfectly, 6000 years ago.

What's your take on convergent evolution? I'm as mystified as anyone, as to how completely unrelated species, on different continents, "became" so similar to others, to fill ecological niches.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Lucrum:

More than a few here think the same of you.

Only the ones who don't actually, you know, think.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Only the ones who don't actually, you know, think.

I always considered the "thinkers" as the ones who didn't necessarily believe anything and everything they're told no matter how implausible or how many others may happen to agree with it.



On a side note you have given me pause to reconsider the possibility of reincarnation. As you were obviously a sheep in a former life.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Lucrum:

I always considered the "thinkers" as the ones who didn't necessarily believe anything and everything they're told no matter how implausible or how many others may happen to agree with it.



On a side note you have given me pause to reconsider the possibility of reincarnation. As you were obviously a sheep in a former life.

The only people who oppose evolution are creationists. No one else. How ironic that a creationist would call an evolutionist a sheep. Now be a good lamb, listen to your lord the shepherd, and get back to your flock.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Gabfly1:

The only people who oppose evolution are creationists. No one else. How ironic that a creationist would call an evolutionist a sheep. Now be a good lamb, listen to your lord the shepherd, and get back to your flock.

Your next alias should be "Mr. Assumption".

1) I don't "oppose" evolution...or God/creation
2) unlike you I have no desperate personal need to believe or disbelieve either, or even a plausible third option/theory should someone ever develop one
3) also unlike you I have no utterly desperate need to convince everyone that my chosen theory/belief on the subject is THE only possibility.

Below is a well written article that expresses my feelings on the topic.

http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm

 

[tomdavis]

Interesting article. I especially liked this quote: "Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't."

Quote from Lucrum:

Below is a well written article that expresses my feelings on the topic.

http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from tomdavis:

Interesting article. I especially liked this quote: "Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't."

Yeah I emphasized that excerpt earlier. Of course to the anti God/creator fanatics this IS a major part of their argument, so naturally they ignored it.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from tomdavis:

Interesting article. I especially liked this quote: "Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't."

If that precept was genuinely adhered to in the schools that would otherwise propose to teach it, then the idea of creationism as a purported "scientific theory" would already be dead, buried and forgotten.