I think you missed the point, which is not what you think or what the bible says, but rather what the science-denying orthodox religious leaders believed at the time. That is the reason they are your brethren. In 200 years, your ancestors will look back at you in the same light.
Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
I think you missed the point, which is not what you think or what the bible says, but rather what the science-denying orthodox religious leaders believed at the time. That is the reason they are your brethren. In 200 years, your ancestors will look back at you in the same light.
As long as the appendage was still in its noodly phase. At times it evolves into another, more hardy form, which may be called an elevated or superior form, and it's anything but a vestigial organ.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
jjscap
Well-Known Member
Can't believe creationism is this popular in the US. In other modern countries, they don't even discuss such things. Science, mother****ers! What's the deal with the US? Government strategy? Like "God save us all"? You know this helps a lot. You control people, give them hope.
See the graph below. USA is the obvious outlier, does not follow the pattern. Religion is too important across the country.
See the graph below. USA is the obvious outlier, does not follow the pattern. Religion is too important across the country.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Already did that a long time ago.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Fixed.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That statement is directly from Miller's biology textbook to describe evolution, so if you believe he truly opposed books that "mislead on evolution" he should oppose his own.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Pear threw away his/her books on Darwinism a long time ago, along with his books on biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, epidemiology, etc. You know, all the hard sciences that have contributed so much to human progress and knowledge but which Pearl doesn't need because he, as a totally untrained layman, knows better than the scientists who have spent most their entire lives studying such things.
Why do we need science at all when we have political ideology or religion? After all, those two things have cured diseases, sent men to the moon, built bridges, developed computer technology, built bridges, explored the cosmos, developed airplane/jet technology, invented air warming and cooling technologies, etc. We don't need no damned scientists, we need more uninformed, unknowledgable, untrained political/religious ideologues to tell us how things really are.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Darwin's stories ain't hard science. I love hard science and some soft science too. Just don't like Darwinism foisted on us as science.
All those bolded things are Intelligent Design science, they didn't just happen by accident as Darwinists want us to believe is how we came to be.
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
Thanks to you for preaching. You deserve you justice. We will get ares by have friends in IRS continuing investigate creationist and put into cell like we did Kent Hovind.
Everybody join rationalresponders.com with me we can force creationist into silence.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Evolution IS hard science. It has yielded numerous testable hypotheses over time involving several scientific disciplines. Intelligent design has yet to yield a single testable hypothesis.
The fact that you think evolution 'happens by accident' shows from the get go you have no f'n idea what evolution is.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Nah, it is fables about a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale.
A fish flying out of the ocean and becoming a bird.
Darwinists take a few bones and make up crackpot stories about them.
Or notice how a fish can use its fins to move on land so they must have sprouted legs and became frogs completely by accident.
At most Darwinism is a nondisprovable pseudoscience like Astrology.
Darwin's "testable hypothesis":
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down."
How the hell would you test that and would you accept this same test for creationism?:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down."