Which are you? Evolutionist? Creationist? Both? None?

[Corinthian™]

You just said the exact reasoning as to why I choose not to believe such. A theory can be disproven, no matter how popular the belief, so long as it is a theory within the realm of logic. At one time the scientific community scoffed the same way it does at creationalism at the notion that the Earth was not flat.



Scientists also further their own beliefs at times by falsifying the 'facts' at the expense of the truth. It happens on a daily basis. When you refuse to see anything beyond your own view, that happens. I've done a lot of research into evolution and cannot see a viable reason to take any of it as an indisputable reason for why organisms are here today just in the same way you see no reason as to why creationalism is valid.



Was that really needed?

OK.. trying to link the DARK ERA(when there were few scientist and it was all controlled by the holy catholic church) to our current time doesn't help you

And a Scientist may further their own beliefs, but a group of scientist hardly does that. Scientist are always showing and disproving long held theories about the world we live. Doesn't help them in any way.

And you want an example of evolution, look at the ****ing coackroches

 

[Spade]

OK.. trying to link the DARK ERA(when there were few scientist and it was all controlled by the holy catholic church) to our current time doesn't help you

I was referencing Ptolemy, who was a bit of a far cry from both the Catholic Church and the Dark Ages.

And a Scientist may further their own beliefs, but a group of scientist hardly does that. Scientist are always showing and disproving long held theories about the world we live. Doesn't help them in any way.

It does when they have an agenda to meet. You're taking an awfully pure and optimistic view of the scientific community. Scientists are doing in a modern era what the Crusades did for the Christians.

And you want an example of evolution, look at the ****ing coackroches

That's an excellent example; it's as nonsensical as the theory itself.

 

[Corinthian™]

I was referencing Ptolemy, who was a bit of a far cry from both the Catholic Church and the Dark Ages.



It does when they have an agenda to meet. You're taking an awfully pure and optimistic view of the scientific community. Scientists are doing in a modern era what the Crusades did for the Christians.



That's an excellent example; it's as nonsensical as the theory itself.

Dear lord Satan The redeemer, if I write a damn word wrong, just pass through and don't point it out like that. Not all of us got the grace of growing up in an english speaking country

Ptolemy, yes. But still. Concidering the knowledge we have now and the experiences and the whole archeology and other fields of studies dedicated to the knowledge of the past through means of excavating and others, we are more advanced.

Since when does scientist have an agenda? TSOG is a bad influence


And it's a good example. It's a freaking insect. Why do the spray doesn't work a decade after it was made? Why do we need constant pesticides, vaccines and others to fight viruses and other nasty things?

Oh yes, because they keep adapting themselves to be able to infect our bodies. It's called Evolution.

 

[spideylover89]

It does when they have an agenda to meet. You're taking an awfully pure and optimistic view of the scientific community.

As are you of the religious community. People are people and regardless of whether they are religious or "scientific", they are still capable of manipulating things for their own agenda. A scientist can alter a theory in his favor just as easily as a preacher can interprate the Bible in his favor.



Also the argument that evolution is just a theory and isn't supported by evidence is as valid as an argument that the Bible is a theory. Essentially everything in the Bible is a story that explains how something happened, a myth, and it can neither be proved or disproved. There is evidence, but it isn't concrete enough to be able to draw definite conclusions. You can simply chose to believe it or not and that is your right and just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it is wrong, in this argument there is no right or wrong.

 

[Danalys]

you guys make a lot of presumptions about scientists. theory in science means it explains things. the theory of evolution explains the evidence we have found naturistically. it stands up to investigation in multiple scientific disaplines. it is a concrete testable idea of how things could happen. and it passes tests every time it has been required to so far. if you go for supernatural answers then you know nothing. there are infinite supernatural ways the universe could be like it is. any idea you choose would be as likely as any other. keeping things naturalistic avoids this. there is only one way things could have happened naturalistically. it is evidence that inspires the mind to think of an explination that fits the evidence. it is then tested against evidence undiscovered when the theory was conceived.

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[Decay]

Both of them might be true....no one knows for sure.

 

[Addendum]

Were you adopted?

My dad ****ed my mom, and 9 months later I popped out. Origin of my life.

How life began on this planet has never interested me at all.

 

[wolfsfang]

I believe that nothing existed until the day I was born!

Seriously tho I am an evolution guy all the way...all evidence points to evolution (and there is a lot of it) where none (except for a book written a few thousand years ago) exists to prove creation had anything to do with it.