Why is it so hard for you to accept that evolution is fact?
Sort:
TheLengendaryBishop
May 16, 2024
0
#201
You know I believe in evolution, right?
Optimissed wrote:
Fig51 wrote:
Oh sorry, didn’t know that the question might block this.
Hello, this thread was set up as an alternative to another thread where the "owner" can't handle free discussion. It got a lot of posts, numbering well into the 1000s but the owner started to crack up or something. Discussion there is impossible because he blocks everybody and so this was set up. I think GodsCoelcanth is trying to get the thread closed. I don't want to report him because that could get the it closed too but since hapless isn't here, I'm going to take the chance and report any of his comments which mention religion, from now on. The comments this person is making aren't intelligent comments but are just designed to try to appear to be intelligent. And I also assume Lordhunky is joking, since he better had be joking!
Ah, yes, cause my username basically means 'Thread-Troller'. Bruh I'm a Creationist. I'm going to defend and point out what I see and want to know as well as share what I know.
Optimissed wrote:
LordHunkyhair3 wrote:
#121 well I agree with Godscoelcanth so probably not joking
Is it about religion? If so, we probably better hadn't talk about it. But how could you? I thought you were a person of discretion and taste. How could you possibly agree with a pseudo-intellectual? I shall turn into Violet Elizabeth Bott and skweam and skweam until I am thick.
Only a person afraid of religion would say religion has nothing to do with science.
Sobrukai wrote:
DrakonicStriker_17 wrote:
U do realize that even scientists with 100 more iq than u know its just a theiry
A theory in science is something that is so well supported that it's pretty much a known fact. It is only listed as a theory because there is possible room for improvement.
And room for replacement. Also room for finding the theory falsely done.
May 16, 2024
0
#205
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
DrakonicStriker_17 wrote:
U do realize that even scientists with 100 more iq than u know its just a theiry
A theory in science is something that is so well supported that it's pretty much a known fact. It is only listed as a theory because there is possible room for improvement.
And room for replacement. Also room for finding the theory falsely done.
I don't understand the second statement. There is a theoretical chance that the theory of evolution could be replaced but at this moment in time it is so clear and so well supported that it can't really be denied.
TheLengendaryBishop wrote:
You know I believe in evolution, right?
Why do you? What makes it the turning point for you in the start of life?
Sobrukai wrote:
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
DrakonicStriker_17 wrote:
U do realize that even scientists with 100 more iq than u know its just a theiry
A theory in science is something that is so well supported that it's pretty much a known fact. It is only listed as a theory because there is possible room for improvement.
And room for replacement. Also room for finding the theory falsely done.
I don't understand the second statement. There is a theoretical chance that the theory of evolution could be replaced but at this moment in time it is so clear and so well supported that it can't really be denied.
Well-supported? What about Darwin. He didn't claim anything. He only made a point that all of his theories could happen but definitely wouldn't. (Also)Take for example, someone claims to find a new element. Other scientists try the same experiment and find out that it fails to create a new element, and finds the experiment flawed. Now show Evolution, you can't even do an experiment to make it. How are you gonna prove it wrong? But also, how are you gonna show that it is flawless and is real? Theories are theories, not reality.
May 16, 2024
0
#209
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
DrakonicStriker_17 wrote:
U do realize that even scientists with 100 more iq than u know its just a theiry
A theory in science is something that is so well supported that it's pretty much a known fact. It is only listed as a theory because there is possible room for improvement.
And room for replacement. Also room for finding the theory falsely done.
I don't understand the second statement. There is a theoretical chance that the theory of evolution could be replaced but at this moment in time it is so clear and so well supported that it can't really be denied.
Well-supported? What about Darwin. He didn't claim anything. He only made a point that all of his theories could happen but definitely wouldn't. (Also)Take for example, someone claims to find a new element. Other scientists try the same experiment and find out that it fails to create a new element, and finds the experiment flawed. Now show Evolution, you can't even do an experiment to make it. How are you gonna prove it wrong? But also, how are you gonna show that it is flawless and is real? Theories are theories, not reality.
Darwin was a genius and his theories of evolution via natural selection were widely accepted as the truth in 1950. While I build a case, can you show me anything that disproves evolution? Also theories in science in an idea that is so well supported by experiments and observations it's widely accepted as a fact.
May 16, 2024
0
#212
Also, just to make my stance on this clear, i believe in micro evolution which is very obviously true but not macro
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
The scientific hurdles that must be crossed for a naturalistic universe to exist take far more faith to believe than that there is an omnipotent being who created it.
Great point. However, it's a statement about the human condition and not about the real process, whatever that was, which caused the universe. If it means that it's easier to believe in a divine creation than in the scientific complications that would be necessary, that isn't in itself a statement concerning what it was that caused the universe.
It's only a statement about how many or some humans prefer to think.
Yeah good point, I do realize that but the reason I said that was because evolutionists are always attacking creationists for their "faith" in the place of "science"
Also most people know that there is in fact actual evidence that the Bible's stories are true. They have found actual places the Bible mentions, if it was made up(the Bible) then the places in it weren't.
May 16, 2024
0
#214
Here's an article from the National Center for Science Education that explains this concept far better than I could.
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
Sobrukai wrote:
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
DrakonicStriker_17 wrote:
U do realize that even scientists with 100 more iq than u know its just a theiry
A theory in science is something that is so well supported that it's pretty much a known fact. It is only listed as a theory because there is possible room for improvement.
And room for replacement. Also room for finding the theory falsely done.
I don't understand the second statement. There is a theoretical chance that the theory of evolution could be replaced but at this moment in time it is so clear and so well supported that it can't really be denied.
Well-supported? What about Darwin. He didn't claim anything. He only made a point that all of his theories could happen but definitely wouldn't. (Also)Take for example, someone claims to find a new element. Other scientists try the same experiment and find out that it fails to create a new element, and finds the experiment flawed. Now show Evolution, you can't even do an experiment to make it. How are you gonna prove it wrong? But also, how are you gonna show that it is flawless and is real? Theories are theories, not reality.
Darwin was a genius and his theories of evolution via natural selection were widely accepted as the truth in 1950. While I build a case, can you show me anything that disproves evolution? Also theories in science in an idea that is so well supported by experiments and observations it's widely accepted as a fact.
Get ready!
May 16, 2024
0
#216
Chlckenz wrote:
Also, just to make my stance on this clear, i believe in micro evolution which is very obviously true but not macro
That's foolish. We can look at fossils and find relationships between those and the species we have today, being macroevolution. at least you got something right.
May 16, 2024
0
#217
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
The scientific hurdles that must be crossed for a naturalistic universe to exist take far more faith to believe than that there is an omnipotent being who created it.
Great point. However, it's a statement about the human condition and not about the real process, whatever that was, which caused the universe. If it means that it's easier to believe in a divine creation than in the scientific complications that would be necessary, that isn't in itself a statement concerning what it was that caused the universe.
It's only a statement about how many or some humans prefer to think.
Yeah good point, I do realize that but the reason I said that was because evolutionists are always attacking creationists for their "faith" in the place of "science"
Also most people know that there is in fact actual evidence that the Bible's stories are true. They have found actual places the Bible mentions, if it was made up(the Bible) then the places in it weren't.
The idea that your god created every species (like the human) with no need for evolution is absurd.