HOME | DD
Kotego — Stamp - Not Just a Theory
Published: 2011-03-07 00:31:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 1783; Favourites: 83; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT: Eh, what the hell, comments enabled. xD"If Evolution is 'just a theory', then Creationism is just a hypothesis"
Theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Hypothesis: 1. a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification
2. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition
3. an unproved theory; a conjecture
Fact is Evolution has far more facts than Creationism ever will.
Stamp base by --> [link]
Related content
Comments: 99
I propose that in lieu of Evolution, schools teach kids that the Aztec Deity Quetzalcoatl created Humans using blood from his own Penis.
After all, if Creationists insist on filling our Impressionable youths' heads with Fairy-Tale Bullshit, then might I suggest a compromise?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You heathen, we all know we came from Ymir's pits after he was birthed from the drops of water that formed when the ice of Niflheim met the heat of Muspelheim within the great void, Ginnungagap.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If elovolution is "just a theory" then gravity is "just a theory" too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Only humans were genetically created, so evolution is half true. It makes since because humans are way too advance for that short of time on the evolution scale.. It would've taken billions of more years for humanity to get this far on their own, so you may or may not find the truth more pleasantly suprising considering how it's more so a mix. Although their is not a single god but many, and gods are Guardians of the Cosmos, so that's why we're called that.. we aren't what others think we are..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Banning Public Schools from teaching the Theory of Evolution will NOT stop children from learning about Evolution!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, though a great deal will get dumber.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Did you know that humans are evolving flatter faces, longer hair, and bigger eyes. Yep, we are literally evolving into anime people.
We are going to be called Homo Pulchra. That means Man Beautiful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I am laughing so hard right now!!! LOL
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If both are false?
The problem is that science seems determined to prove evolution, at least Darwin's version. That means all evidence and observations are used to prove something already decided on, like a jury viewing evidence only in a way to convict someone they've already decided is guilty.
In other words, nobody knows how we got here, and as long as everyone keeps chanting existing dogma, nobody ever will. By the year 3015, if we get that far, they will laugh at how we were so sure of our "facts."
Over the weekend, I lost my last cat. She died of cancer. Treatment was the same as it would have been over three decades ago, and the vet even admitted she would have been no worse off in 1982- we've gotten nowhere.
I will visit a friend who is losing his sight and has lost his lower legs to diabetes. As he would have in 1982.
I will visit him in a car that burns gasoline- as they have for about a century.
We've stagnated.
Time to try something new.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
". . . like a jury viewing evidence only in a way to convict someone they've already decided is guilty."
Yeah, it's called having a hypothesis and then testing it. And after decades upon decades of research using the scientific method, the theory of evolution has been developed as we know it now, which is actually vastly beyond even what Darwin theorized.
"In other words, nobody knows how we got here, and as long as everyone keeps chanting existing dogma, nobody ever will"
Except the scientists are the ones doing actual research on the theory constantly, often adjusting it in accordance to new findings; and with that research mountains of evidence has been stacked in favor of evolution. To dismiss that is just absurd. The theory hasn't been dogmatically the same throughout the centuries, as you seem to believe. Darwin's theory of evolution is different and much more erroneous compared to the one we have today.
"Over the weekend, I lost my last cat. She died of cancer. Treatment was the same as it would have been over three decades ago, and the vet even admitted she would have been no worse off in 1982- we've gotten nowhere.
I will visit a friend who is losing his sight and has lost his lower legs to diabetes. As he would have in 1982.
I will visit him in a car that burns gasoline- as they have for about a century.
We've stagnated.
Time to try something new."
Cancer, diabetes and alternative fuels are subjects still being thoroughly researched. If you honestly think there's been no change whatsoever, take a look at what cancer treatment was like in the early twentieth century. The synthetic insulin used today is vastly different from the bovine insulin that was first created. Just because no one has all the answers now doesn't mean the scientific method doesn't work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't talking about the early 20th century, but the last three decades. We have gotten NOWHERE, and even the vet himself admitted it. The doctors at that nursing home admitted it. And these are veteran professionals.
We're still burning coal, petroleum, etc.
Even the reasonable predictions Arthur C. Clark made in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (forget the Monolith) failed to come true, but it must have seemed probable when the book was written based on the three decades before that.
Obviously the more a society worships science the more stagnant it becomes. Something is missing. The 20th century had numerous examples of this. You brought up the early 20th century; is it not odd that before the blind worship of science so much more was actually being accomplished?
I was assured by computer scientists that my 2006 netbook could not stream Internet radio. It now has 120 stations on it, a dozen local stations; only the RTMP protocol stations are beyond it (so far). Yet when I offered to e-mail the mini-files allowing this to them they refused to respond. I was told that it could not now, with Opera Mini 5, upload art to a little website called Deviantart.com.
So I guess if you click this you're only seeing things:
griswaldterrastone.deviantart.…
Maybe that's the point behind faith moving mountains. If you don't have faith it can be done you won't try, and so it will never happen. Science is often so busy saying "can't" that faith is the only thing that has made it happen. Science insisted that heavier-than-air manned flight was impossible, so it was two "anti-scientists" who did make it happen.
(Question: If science says it's impossible or "irrational nonsense," has it not forfeited any credit for the accomplishment? Maybe those who get it done should be called "Realitists.")
As for evolution: it works much like a religious cult, the Unification Church ("Moonies") being a perfect example. If you read through the literature and listened to the speakers it all seem to make perfect sense, until you realize that everything you were being told was based on you accepting what you had been told before.
Evolutionists do not want to face the logical fallacy of Darwin: he merely observed variety ("microevolution") and made a huge leap by declaring that one species changed into another ("macroevolution"). It's literally like saying that someone driving north out of Mexico MUST be heading for Canada, so look for him in Toronto, officer. Thing is, there is no proof anywhere that this has ever happened. None. Look at a Victorian-era dog breed book and see how much dogs have changed since then, yet you can still see that the dogs are Dalmations, Collies, Alsations, etc. Just as looking at Darwin's pictures shows that those were the same animals. Yet for all of the human interference and breeding, even English Bulldogs are essentially like their wolf ancestors in behavior, and modern dogs can still cross-breed with wolves. Because they are the same thing still. The chances of "random mutations" causing one species to become another is ludicrous: since it takes "two to tango" at least one male AND one female would have to be created in the same way for the new species to continue. It would make Lotto 54 look like a coin toss, and for it to keep happening...
The problem with your statement is that you are overlooking the fact that ever since Darwin pushed his crackpot theory the "science religion" has been trying to prove it at all costs. That's a problem there: you speak of "the scientific method" as if it is some totally objective and neutral thing, but you must know that is not the case; how often have you yourself seen "science" that is really nothing more than someone's political agenda? Remember how "science" used to declare homosexuals and lesbians to be essentially insane (Look up Havelock Ellis, who in turn was influenced by another- one built the other by accepting the previous)? Then the politics in this country changed, and what another amazing coincidence- suddenly it wasn't.
Darwin was like that. Look at the kind of society he came from, then consider that his theory was linear and involved hierarchy. Yet Reality is quite different: no matter how much faster a male gazelle is he might break his leg in a hole dug by Timon so the lionesses get him, a weaker lion may always get in a "lucky punch," a snakebite can happen to anything, and if a shark or whale swims through a school of fish the survivors will be the ones that didn't happen to be in front of its open mouth. Then there are the "stealth males." There is even evidence that even cavemen would try to care for and protect weaker or crippled members of the tribe. We were in dog rescue and noticed that the largest and most formidable dog had taken two of the old ones under his protection, so none of the others dared tangle with them.
Fact is, no matter how much evidence piles up against evolution the mainstream science community will never, ever admit it was wrong. Therefore it will always try to interpret evidence in whatever way proves them right. This is why I compare it to religion: just as if 100% proof positive came out that creationalism is wrong Christians can never accept it, so science can never accept anything other than evolution. All the proof against Rev. Moon failed to convince his most ardent followers.
In 1993 my father died- by a bleeding ulcer. Turns out that antibiotics could have maybe prevented that, as a bacteria is involved. Then I discovered that this had been advocated by someone as early as 1983 rather than afterwards, but the mainstream science community did not want to accept it.
In effect, the arrogance of the science religion murdered my father.
(And no, none of this has anything to do with you personally, so it's not any kind of insult to you. If you haven't blocked, at least you have the nerve to stand and fight. You might find the 1969 book "The Peter Principal" worth reading, by the way. In its way, it explains much about things in general.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I wasn't talking about the early 20th century, but the last three decades. We have gotten NOWHERE, and even the vet himself admitted it. The doctors at that nursing home admitted it. And these are veteran professionals."
Innovations of the last thirty years --> knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/ar…
Innovations just made in 2014 --> news.sciencemag.org/scientific…
You seem to be under the impression because you don't see drastic changes at face value then there's been no scientific advancement at all.
"We're still burning coal, petroleum, etc."
Barring the fact the corporations of those industries often influence politicians to move funds away from alternative energy research, it's not like absolutely zero progress has been made at all. www.alternative-energy-news.in…
"Even the reasonable predictions Arthur C. Clark made in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (forget the Monolith) failed to come true, but it must have seemed probable when the book was written based on the three decades before that."
So fiction novelists are credible sources now?
"Obviously the more a society worships science the more stagnant it becomes. Something is missing. The 20th century had numerous examples of this. You brought up the early 20th century; is it not odd that before the blind worship of science so much more was actually being accomplished?"
Really, because so far your arguments have mostly been, "Scientific progress isn't moving at a break-neck speed and therefore it is obsolete."
"I was assured by computer scientists that my 2006 netbook could not stream Internet radio. It now has 120 stations on it, a dozen local stations; only the RTMP protocol stations are beyond it (so far). Yet when I offered to e-mail the mini-files allowing this to them they refused to respond. I was told that it could not now, with Opera Mini 5, upload art to a little website called Deviantart.com."
So you have one example of computer scientists being prone to error and that somehow means all science is failing?
"So I guess if you click this you're only seeing things:"
I fail to see how a comic (made by you) is indicative of anything. Unless that's an incorrect link.
"Maybe that's the point behind faith moving mountains. If you don't have faith it can be done you won't try, and so it will never happen. Science is often so busy saying "can't" that faith is the only thing that has made it happen. Science insisted that heavier-than-air manned flight was impossible, so it was two "anti-scientists" who did make it happen."
Show me one example of faith accomplishing anything other than bullshit personal experiences that can be neither proved nor disproved. That you think science has ever said , "can't" makes me question your total understanding of it. It has never said "can't", it has always worked to do otherwise. Faith didn't make vaccines or discovered DNA, science did that.
"(Question: If science says it's impossible or "irrational nonsense," has it not forfeited any credit for the accomplishment? Maybe those who get it done should be called "Realitists.") "
Are you referring to faith? I'm not sure what you're asking.
"As for evolution: it works much like a religious cult, the Unification Church ("Moonies") being a perfect example. If you read through the literature and listened to the speakers it all seem to make perfect sense, until you realize that everything you were being told was based on you accepting what you had been told before."
How are those two in any way comparable? Religions set a dogmatic list of standards one is obligated to live by while all evolution does is explain how animals form through the process of millions of years. Evolution doesn't demand you do anything, and unlike religion is has actual evidence to back it up.
"Evolutionists do not want to face the logical fallacy of Darwin: he merely observed variety ("microevolution") and made a huge leap by declaring that one species changed into another ("macroevolution")."
It was theorized that if creatures are able to make small changes over a small period of time, it's entirely possible for large changes to occur over large periods of time. How is that a fallacy?
"It's literally like saying that someone driving north out of Mexico MUST be heading for Canada"
Uh, no, it's like saying, "This car is capable of driving 45 miles in 60 minutes, so it is probable to believe it could reach 90 miles in 120 minutes."
"Because they are the same thing still."
No, they're not. Dogs have become almost completely domesticated over the course of centuries while you'll be hard-pressed to ever fully domesticate a wolf, even if you raise it from birth.
"The problem with your statement is that you are overlooking the fact that ever since Darwin pushed his crackpot theory the "science religion" has been trying to prove it at all costs."
For all your insistence evolution is a crackpot theory, you have yet to refute any of the evidence that has been laid out. I didn't realize amassing credible evidence through research and using the scientific method somehow meant, "proving at all costs." I guess if that's your standard, no wonder you seem to have this insane notion science has become as dogmatic as religion.
"you speak of "the scientific method" as if it is some totally objective and neutral thing, but you must know that is not the case"
Except it has been proven to be the most credible method of studying anything. It demands a high standard for evidence and research, which in turn produces the most reliable results. How you think that is a bad thing is beyond me.
"how often have you yourself seen "science" that is really nothing more than someone's political agenda"
Less often than I've seen science used for the sake of discovery.
"Remember how "science" used to declare homosexuals and lesbians to be essentially insane"
It had been declared insane during a time when there was incredibly limited understanding of sexuality. And much of that declaration was influenced by centuries of religious zealotry. With a much greater understanding of psychology and sexuality it's now been declared just as sane as heterosexuality (something that wouldn't have been accomplished without the pursuit of scientific advancement, imagine that).
"Then the politics in this country changed, and what another amazing coincidence- suddenly it wasn't."
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973, a time when it was still barely accepted. Have you listened to right-wing politicians at all? They still stand on a platform of "protecting traditional marriage", a sentiment that thousands of people still hold today. Most of the Republican nominees for this upcoming election openly oppose gay marriage and other rights. There are states passing "religious liberty" laws which allow discrimination against gay people. In many states gay people can be legally fired, evicted, or barred from seeing a loved one in the hospital.
" no matter how much faster a male gazelle is he might break his leg in a hole dug by Timon so the lionesses get him, a weaker lion may always get in a "lucky punch," a snakebite can happen to anything, and if a shark or whale swims through a school of fish the survivors will be the ones that didn't happen to be in front of its open mouth"
Is this your understanding of natural selection? Because it's pretty pisspoor. It has little to do with who turns out to be lucky, but rather who has the most desirable traits to pass on to the next generation.
"There is even evidence that even cavemen would try to care for and protect weaker or crippled members of the tribe. We were in dog rescue and noticed that the largest and most formidable dog had taken two of the old ones under his protection, so none of the others dared tangle with them."
That's because humans and dogs are social species.
"Fact is, no matter how much evidence piles up against evolution the mainstream science community will never, ever admit it was wrong. "
Care to present the evidence against it?
" This is why I compare it to religion: just as if 100% proof positive came out that creationalism is wrong Christians can never accept it, so science can never accept anything other than evolution."
You fail to realize creationism has absolutely nothing to support it, other than a bronze age book of fairy tales, contrary to evolution. Here's some basic evidence to get started anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evol…
"In 1993 my father died- by a bleeding ulcer. Turns out that antibiotics could have maybe prevented that, as a bacteria is involved. Then I discovered that this had been advocated by someone as early as 1983 rather than afterwards, but the mainstream science community did not want to accept it."
Considering how vague this story has been presented, I doubt I can properly respond, so I won't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm running out of wifi time here, so this cannot be too long, since I'm a crummy typist...
Well, I do not believe in creationalism, either.
The point I'm making is that science is like religion: once it becomes obsessed with dogma it won't change unless forced to. The "progress" you mention hasn't actually made any difference in real life, it is merely academic. In 1977 we had a big station wagon, with metal bumpers, that got 22 mpg. Almost four decades later look at the "great mileage" in those silly cars today; it's a bad joke. And why are they even still burning petroleum, for crying out loud? Again, no advancement in actual real life. Theories and this and that, propaganda from the science community and flashy techy commercials are all very nice, but nothing solid. Did you know there is a growing "right to die" movement in this country? That is in part because of the lack of advancement in treating agonizing illnesses. After what I've seen over the years, I can understand that; slow death I wouldn't wish on Stalin or Hitler.
I won't show you the evidence against evolution- such as the fact that no fossil evidence actually showing macroevolution has ever been found, in spite of the large numbers of fossils found. It would be pointless, let's both face it. If you show someone proof against creationalism but that someone wants to still believe it, what would you accomplish? Nothing.
Earlier in the 20th century something called "Kirlian photography" was discovered. This actually showed the "aura" around living things did exist, and that the "nodes" in the photos did correspond exactly with accupuncture charts from centuries ago. Cut a leaf off a plant, take another photo- even if you move the plant and camera- and a ghostly image remains. The result of rock-solid, 100% concrete proof that science was wrong and these things do exist? Continuous denial. What makes this disgusting is that illness can show up with this in the earliest possible stages, yet- just as with my father- the science community's absolutist behavior and refusal to face reality stopped it from going anywhere. How many lives might have been saved, who knows what wonders might exist today, but for that? So even with physical proof it means nothing.
The whole thing depresses me. When I was a kid they promised all sorts of wonderful things by now, such as a cure for cancer, diabetes, safe clean energy on a large, practical scale, etc. Now almost 50 and I look around nursing homes- no different than the year "Blade Runner" came out. And it looks like it will be the same if I die at 80. Nothing. Someone from 1982 would be astonished by the lack of anything, and I don't mean gadgets and mere improvements on what they had long ago.
This puts YOU in danger, too. I'd rather not see that happen, so- good luck.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"The "progress" you mention hasn't actually made any difference in real life"
From what you've been arguing with your own personal experiences, none of these advancements have made a difference in your life and that somehow means they don't matter. You hold a ridiculous standard for how fast progress has to be made and then bemoan that nothing surpasses your expectations. I find it funny you seem to know absolutely everything about the science community - have you spent more than a decade studying at a university, ever published a peer-reviewed article, ever actually studied in any of these fields?
" And why are they even still burning petroleum, for crying out loud?"
I've answered this question twice already.
" Did you know there is a growing "right to die" movement in this country?"
What makes you so sure it's due to the supposedly momentous failings of the scientific and medical communities, and not that it may have more to do with rights to bodily autonomy?
"After what I've seen over the years, I can understand that; slow death I wouldn't wish on Stalin or Hitler."
And yet you fail to realize it was through scientific advancement that increased the life-expectancy of the average human.
"I won't show you the evidence against evolution- such as the fact that no fossil evidence actually showing macroevolution has ever been found, in spite of the large numbers of fossils found."
Got a link to that? Got any solid evidence? Otherwise I can only assume you've got nothing.
" Continuous denial"
You keep on insisting the scientific community has been in denial of all these oh-so wondrous breakthroughs and yet provide no evidence just how they seem to be denying it. You'll have to forgive me if I choose not to just take your word on it.
"just as with my father- the science community's absolutist behavior and refusal to face reality stopped it from going anywhere"
Has it ever occurred to you shit just goes wrong sometimes? My own father died after several treatments, but even I realize I can't just pin the blame on a community because I'm upset. I myself am type 1 diabetic and yet you don't see me demanding why the medical community hasn't come up with a cure already - I realize there may not even be a cure in my lifetime, but I'm willing to accept that rather than moan that scientists and doctors are too inadequate and so I write them all off.
"When I was a kid they promised all sorts of wonderful things by now, such as a cure for cancer, diabetes, safe clean energy on a large, practical scale, etc. Now almost 50 and I look around nursing homes- no different than the year "Blade Runner" came out. And it looks like it will be the same if I die at 80. Nothing. Someone from 1982 would be astonished by the lack of anything, and I don't mean gadgets and mere improvements on what they had long ago."
Once again you're only demonstrating ridiculous standards. Cancer, diabetes and energy are still being researched, meaning they don't immediately have a solution but are working on one so that there may be one in the future.
"The whole thing depresses me"
I'd imagine I'd be depressed too if I got it into my head there's some giant conspiracy going on.
"Someone from 1982 would be astonished by the lack of anything, and I don't mean gadgets and mere improvements on what they had long ago."
Really? You've interviewed them all?
"This puts YOU in danger, too. I'd rather not see that happen, so- good luck."
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
meh I still believe in creation and thats all that matters to me.... I would try and to state my opinion but I'm inly 12 and suck at explaining things...XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You still have some maturing to do. You'll develop your thinking skills soon
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Biatch plz! I know a lot! X3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Evidently not enough x)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
why is everyone thinking, that EVERY christian is a dumb pedophile creationist?
that is very stupid.
dude, just because i believe in god, it doesn´t mean, that i can´t be smart!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Where in this post does it imply anyone thinks that way?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Bravo!!!! 
PS: I'm stealing this stamp to put into my collections!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That doesn't stop Creationists, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So sick of seeing "evolution vs creationism" in the controversyInc group.
Almost everyone agrees on evolution so there's no point of even uploading this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The creationists are still talking. There would not have been a televised evisceration of Ken Ham if they kept mum.Aforementioned evisceration is bound to draw in people who were never familiar with this "controversy" nor the accompanying arguments from either side and the mountains of evidence supporting the winning side. Children and teens are likely the biggest demographic of this sort. And since many children and teens have not developed proper critical thinking skills, they're the easiest prey for creationist fucktards. Hence, the Evidence Flag still needs to be flown. Like... If people stopped talking about the solar system being heliocentric "because "almost every one agrees on it", and neo-geocentrists (i.e. NephilimFree) were to gather a large enough hoard to possibly influence public opinion, there would probably be a layman's "debate" on what revolves around what. You feel me, PrincessElemix?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah okay, I get what you're saying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Alrighty. Have a good evening
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well that all depends on what qualifies as legitimately "observed," and what qualifies as "tested and confirmed."
Do we only consider the 5 senses? Do we only consider experiences while alive?
What about people who have been "scientifically observed to die," then are brought back to life, and then often each of such persons independently confirms and afterlife?
After all, if there is an afterlife (which apparently there is according to multiple observations by people having near death experiences), then scientific theory is failing to account for things which cannot be observed under normal conditions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Mountains of evidence eh? Cool.
Try to explain why most evolutionary theorists hold the position that the origin of life occured through mechanistic processes, following physical laws. There is just one small problem with that: No one knows any physical processes that produce life.
And if every living organism have intermediate stages, why didn't they all die when their digestive systems were in development and not fully functional? I mean doesn't every living thing need food and nutrients and the ability to digest it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis, a different field of study.
"why didn't they all die when their digestive systems were in development and not fully functional?"
Because there never was an "in development" stage. Evolution doesn't make a creature out of nothing- it means one pre-existing life form slowly, over thousands of generations, changing into another. All of which have functional digestive systems.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Where did the pre-existing life forms come from then?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Traced back down the evolutionary tree, right back to the origin of life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, life didn't start by random chance. After all, where would the matter and materials need for life come from?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Now you're talking about Big Bang theory, not the theory of evolution or the theory of abiogenesis. Why do people like you always start by getting your jimmies rustled about evolution, but end up screeching about the Big Bang whenever someone tries to explain it? This is, quite literally, what all of you do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry if I offended you or annoyed you. Parden me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the evolutionary theory and big bang theory go hand and hand?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They're entirely different theories. One deals with the way populations of organisms change over time and the other deals with the beginning of the universe as we know it. It's so annoying that every single person who's skeptical of evolution asks your exact chain of questions or little variants. Get some new material or something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why are you still upset about this? I apologized to you, and all you can do is retaliate and rant?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I corrected you. I didn't rant, unless you consider one bitter one-line quip a "rant". But besides that, I'm serious. Every single person who questions evolution the way you do does so in the exact same way. That's not clever, that's not cute. That's lazy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Still ranting about how every single person who questions evolution is lazy, not clever, needs new material blah blah blah. Oh yeah, you did correct me, pff. How can you correct someone who knew what they were talking about? And I could say the same thing about all the people who question creationism. Its not just a one way street.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A one line quip isn't a rant. Sorry to disappoint. You obviously didn't know what you were talking about, because you thought Big Bang theory = theory of evolution. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right now, I believe theory is centred around electricity interacting with the primordial ooze, but I could be mistaken. Of course, this is nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>