Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can scientists use science to support an idea that has no physical evidence? Do you even have any clue as to what you're arguing here?
The last paragraph was humorous. Perhaps the biggest copout I've seen in quite a while.
telling me to go prove you are correct becuase you cant do it, is the biggest cop out. Its been tried before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Did you even READ the content of what you copied and pasted from that religious site? It was complete non-science rubbish.
I'm waiting for you to attack the facts, not the messenger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
If they believed in creationism, at least for that one idea, they most certainly abandoned the scientific process. Sorry, but fame doesn't equate to perfection or always being right.
Nice to see we have super scientific genius jbcmh81 here, who thinks Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and dozens of other famous scientsts were wrong.
Tell me, what did YOU prove and what prizes have you won for proving that creationism is wrong and the theory of evolution is no longer a theory, but now a fact. I cant wait for my children to read about you in school
You haven't read one word of the many posts defining a scientific theory have you?
I indeed have, are you now telling me the definition of theory is wrong as well? Wow, you guys are such geniuses here!!! Now you are telling me dictionaries are wrong.. woo hoo.. thanks for joining the thread!!!
You are embarrassing yourself. You are probably the least scientific person on the forum.
You just spouted off the typical response. When you don't know how to actually respond, just call 'em stupid!!!!!!!
Can you actually account for the beginnings of the universe? Can you account for the beginning of life? Can you tell me the origins of something as simple as logical absolutes?
Where is she wrong? Darwin's theory, or any other theory of evolution, does not prove that gases and minerals can create life, much less complex life forms.
That's NOT what evolution or the Theory of evolution is, so of course it doesn't prove it.
Seriously, what has happened in the American education system? How can there be grown adults who don't know what evolution even is? Or what a scientific theory is?
That's NOT what evolution or the Theory of evolution is, so of course it doesn't prove it.
Seriously, what has happened in the American education system? How can there be grown adults who don't know what evolution even is? Or what a scientific theory is?
It's not a valid theory anyway, why should anyone care?
Can you actually account for the beginnings of the universe? Can you account for the beginning of life? Can you tell me the origins of something as simple as logical absolutes?
The beginnings of the universe and the beginnings of life are not part of "evolution", by definition.
Logical absolutes are concepts created by an advanced consciousness to categorize things. What metaphysical speculation has to do with evolution is unclear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
