[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]It's 100% that everyone in this thread will die one day...Thinker_rebornYou can only assume that based on the fact that historically everyone who has lived has eventually died. It is not 100% provable, because you can only use deductive reasoning to prove that statement.Nah man that's a weak response.There are some 100% definite things in life. In order to absolutely prove that everyone in this thread with die one day, you will have to record the lives of each person who posted in this thread, and then record how and when each person died. If you don't do that then you can only use deductive reasoning.
Why do some people still deny evolution?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Prove that to me.[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"] I still advocate my initial statement of nothing in life being 100% provable as well. -Jiggles-
Can you undoubtedly prove that the keyboard in front of you is real?
You can see it, smell it, feel it, hear it, and taste it (but only if you really want to), but can you undoubtedly prove that it's actually there?
You have excellent proof that the keyboard in front of you is indeed real, ranging from physically seeing it to touching it and hearing the ticking of the keys, etc, but there is no possible way to prove to a person that the keyboard you claim to exist actually, 100%, undoubtedly exists.
If you can prove me wrong and give me undeniable proof of the keyboard's existance, then by all means, post it here.
Bloody nonsense.:lol:You are trying too hard to be smart.:(
But anyways let's still look at your post.Hmm can anyone prove or even give the smallest of sign that the keyboard doesnt actually exist?And yes bring anyone on my computer desk and I will 100% prove to them that the keyboard exists.
[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You can only assume that based on the fact that historically everyone who has lived has eventually died. It is not 100% provable, because you can only use deductive reasoning to prove that statement.-Sun_Tzu-Nah man that's a weak response.There are some 100% definite things in life. In order to absolutely prove that everyone in this thread with die one day, you will have to record the lives of each person who posted in this thread, and then record how and when each person died. If you don't do that then you can only use deductive reasoning. One can not prove that they are dreaming or awake.. What is reality? How do you know that the people in the world you converse with truly exist and not a figment of your imagination?
Bloody nonsense.:lol:You'd have to prove that you exist before any of us here can bring anyone to your house.You are trying too hard to be smart.:(
But anyways let's still look at your post.Hmm can anyone prove or even give the smallest of sign that the keyboard doesnt actually exist?And yes bring anyone on my computer desk and I will 100% prove to them that the keyboard exists.
Thinker_reborn
[QUOTE="Silenthps"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.
2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
metroidfood
1. That's why it's only used for recent fossils, ones under 60,000. You have yet to prove that it, or the other types of radiometric dating, is false.
3. It's evolution in general. Where does microevolution stop and macroevolution begin? The viruses and bacteria we had several hundreds of years ago are not the same today.
4. He's attacking you because you're making arguments that are easily refuted by knowledge of evolution. If you had studied it more in-depth, you likely would understand why the arguments you're making are nonsensical.
:lol: Exactly. Keep thinking about that.
[QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.
2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
Silenthps
1. That's why it's only used for recent fossils, ones under 60,000. You have yet to prove that it, or the other types of radiometric dating, is false.
3. It's evolution in general. Where does microevolution stop and macroevolution begin? The viruses and bacteria we had several hundreds of years ago are not the same today.
4. He's attacking you because you're making arguments that are easily refuted by knowledge of evolution. If you had studied it more in-depth, you likely would understand why the arguments you're making are nonsensical.
:lol: Exactly. Keep thinking about that. There are plenty more methods of dating fossils that Carbon dating...[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You can only assume that based on the fact that historically everyone who has lived has eventually died. It is not 100% provable, because you can only use deductive reasoning to prove that statement.-Sun_Tzu-Nah man that's a weak response.There are some 100% definite things in life. In order to absolutely prove that everyone in this thread with die one day, you will have to record the lives of each person who posted in this thread, and then record how and when each person died. If you don't do that then you can only use deductive reasoning.:lol:
Ok let me say x,y and z famous celebrities all will die one day?I wont have to do any of that then.Happy?
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.1 - The rate of fossilization varies greatly. Fossils can be formed rather quickly, yes, but it can takes hundreds of thousands of years (note: more than 6,000 years) for other fossils to form. Also, you have yet to prove how carbon dating is faulty.
2 - Yet your initial premise is still wrong.
3 - No, it's not a religion. Your willful ignorance is blinding you from the facts once again. Evolution is a scientific theory that has brought many benefits to the world. Vaccines, genetic engineering, gene therapy, medicines, antibiotics and many other areas of medical healthcare would not be present today if it weren't for the theory of evolution.
4 - I highly doubt you were taught evolution because your incredible lack of knowledge regarding the many areas of it is astounding. If you knew anything about evolution, not just the crocoduck-ludicrous assumptions brought up by the illiterate, then you would know that many intelligent people thoroughly understand the theory, not just the evil, bible-burning atheists you are so quick to attack.
I was raised in a private school for about 8 years of my life, and I was mainly taught about the christian religion. For a long time I was told how God created the world and how we're suppose to follow his divine law, and I was also taught that the theory of evolution was incorrect. My teachers and students adviced me to study the many areas of the christian faith in order to cement my beliefs in God further than they already were. And I did. What I also did, however, was study the sciences that I wasn't yet taught about in the Christian school I attended. Evolution was one of the fields of science I studied as well.
At the time, I found evolution to be stupid, but with further research of other fields of biology, such as heredity, organ systems and animal behavior, I became to understand evolution more thoroughly. I eventually mixed the concepts of evolution into my christian faith and used the scientific knowledge to help benefit my own beliefs. As time passed and I entered into high school, my belief in Christianity was lost after I was taught by professional sources in my new schools about physics, biology and chemistry.
I didn't join any "atheist religion." It was only 2 years after I dropped my faith in Christianity that I even realized what an atheist was. What drove me forward was what I studied and believed to be true, just as how your faith in Christianity now drives you forward. I have examined both sides of the arguement and, despite the fact that a Christian-esque world seems much more delightful and meaningful than the harsh reality of life, I just follow what I, and many others, believe to be true. I would like to ask you, then, how I truly am being biased. Is it just because I accept a belief that you don't? Is it because I don't pray to the Christian god or read the Bible anymore? Is it because you somehow feel threatened by the existance of evolution, despite the fact that the theory itself makes no attempt at disproving God? I would like answers, because you seem to be the typical religious extemist who runs his/her mouth off whenever somebody doesn't agree with his primitive point of view.
The only people who are biased are the fanatics of any kind. The people who are willing the voluntarily deny evidence of any sort just to hopelessly grasp onto their own ancient beliefs. The people who are willing to block their ears, close their eyes and scream out, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when you apply logic and reasoning to an arguement are the ones who enclose their narrow point of view on life. It is these individuals who constantly hold back humanity as a whole by blindly following their own beliefs while arrogantly denying the beliefs of others without even studying them afterwards. It is the pitiful, insecure extremists, like yourself, that refuse to educate themselves about the world around them and never attempt to aid in the progression of society around them. For each step forward the scientific community tries to take, there will always be religious fanatics that hold science's feet down like lead weights, crying out that some theory presented contradicts their own and, despite being supported by more evidence than any arguement previously presented, insist that their own religious views are right and everything else that opposes them is wrong.
You call me biased? Take a look in the mirror, child, and face the harsh reality of life.
sSubZerOo
They don't use carbon 14 to calculate the age of the earth they use Uranium 238, Potasium 40 And some viersion of thorium.. Those are way more accurate AND are used accurately for judign the age of the earth.
2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
The age of the earth proves you wrong alone here. Dinosaurs did not walk with man, we have clearly found that clear with not only never findign a man in the same geological layer as the fossils of dinosaurs, but through the accurate radio active dating. Men must have sprung from the ground, which seems clearly farfetched. The burden of truth is on you to prove otherwise that evolution did not occur, and it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
You don't believe in evolution, the Pope and catholic church do.. You believe in "psudo" made up creationist evolution because it fits iwth your views.. And you are clealry bias when you have such a ridiculous view ont eh age of the earth then claim that you studied up on it.. If you did, you would realize there are FAR more ways to judge the earth older then the creationist view.. Carbon dating is just one of the radio active dating and it isn't used for the billions of years. Furthermore Geology, Biology (dna can map the generations of man, infact thats how scientists believe that a cataclysm happened some time in our histoyr that nearly wiped out man ont eh dna), Enviromental (polar ice cap has layers that are created through a simplistic system of each layer measuring a certain amoutn of time, those layers measure very far back into the past, much older then the 6k years).. Furthermore astronomy clearly disagrees with this as well.. You clearly are extremely bias if you some how claim to have studied science well yet hold such a achaic view.
:lol: hello mr. king of assumptions![QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.
2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
Silenthps
1. That's why it's only used for recent fossils, ones under 60,000. You have yet to prove that it, or the other types of radiometric dating, is false.
3. It's evolution in general. Where does microevolution stop and macroevolution begin? The viruses and bacteria we had several hundreds of years ago are not the same today.
4. He's attacking you because you're making arguments that are easily refuted by knowledge of evolution. If you had studied it more in-depth, you likely would understand why the arguments you're making are nonsensical.
:lol: Exactly. Keep thinking about that.That is why they take the radioactive decay of uranium, potasium and thorium that are accurate far past 60k years..
In order to absolutely prove that everyone in this thread with die one day, you will have to record the lives of each person who posted in this thread, and then record how and when each person died. If you don't do that then you can only use deductive reasoning.:lol:[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]Nah man that's a weak response.There are some 100% definite things in life.Thinker_reborn
Ok let me say x,y and z famous celebrities all will die one day?I wont have to do any of that then.Happy?
You are still just using deductive reasoning. Show me absolute proof that everyone in the world will die, not just past experiences to draw to a conclusion.[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]Bloody nonsense.:lol:You'd have to prove that you exist before any of us here can bring anyone to your house.Well I wouldnt mind punching you.That'll surely prove to you that I do exist.:lol:You are trying too hard to be smart.:(
But anyways let's still look at your post.Hmm can anyone prove or even give the smallest of sign that the keyboard doesnt actually exist?And yes bring anyone on my computer desk and I will 100% prove to them that the keyboard exists.
DeeJayInphinity
You people can kid yourself all you want but somethings are 100%.
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="metroidfood"]:lol: Exactly. Keep thinking about that.1. That's why it's only used for recent fossils, ones under 60,000. You have yet to prove that it, or the other types of radiometric dating, is false.
3. It's evolution in general. Where does microevolution stop and macroevolution begin? The viruses and bacteria we had several hundreds of years ago are not the same today.
4. He's attacking you because you're making arguments that are easily refuted by knowledge of evolution. If you had studied it more in-depth, you likely would understand why the arguments you're making are nonsensical.
sSubZerOo
That is why they take the radioactive decay of uranium, potasium and thorium that are accurate far past 60k years..
Of course ;)You'd have to prove that you exist before any of us here can bring anyone to your house.Well I wouldnt mind punching you.That'll surely prove to you that I do exist.:lol:[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]Bloody nonsense.:lol:
You are trying too hard to be smart.:(
But anyways let's still look at your post.Hmm can anyone prove or even give the smallest of sign that the keyboard doesnt actually exist?And yes bring anyone on my computer desk and I will 100% prove to them that the keyboard exists.
Thinker_reborn
You people can kid yourself all you want but somethings are 100%.
It would not prove that you exist. I might be imagining you.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]:lol: Exactly. Keep thinking about that. Silenthps
That is why they take the radioactive decay of uranium, potasium and thorium that are accurate far past 60k years..
Of course ;)any evidence to the contrary? that they aren't accurate?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]:lol: Exactly. Keep thinking about that. Silenthps
That is why they take the radioactive decay of uranium, potasium and thorium that are accurate far past 60k years..
Of course ;) Okay, so we're agreed that radiometric dating is an accurate way to measure the age of things then. Would you like us to clear up any other misconceptions you may have?[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Of course ;) Okay, so we're agreed that radiometric dating is an accurate way to measure the age of things then. Would you like us to clear up any other misconceptions you may have?No, we agreed that for things less than 60,000 years we use carbon dating and for things past it we use uranium, potasium and thorium. But not that they are accurate.That is why they take the radioactive decay of uranium, potasium and thorium that are accurate far past 60k years..
metroidfood
[QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]Of course ;)SilenthpsOkay, so we're agreed that radiometric dating is an accurate way to measure the age of things then. Would you like us to clear up any other misconceptions you may have?No, we agreed that for things less than 60,000 years we use carbon dating and for things past it we use uranium, potasium and thorium. But not that they are accurate. This is where you either provide us with some facts, or you leave.
[QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]Of course ;)SilenthpsOkay, so we're agreed that radiometric dating is an accurate way to measure the age of things then. Would you like us to clear up any other misconceptions you may have?No, we agreed that for things less than 60,000 years we use carbon dating and for things past it we use uranium, potasium and thorium. But not that they are accurate. Though we still have multiple labs date them... does that help?
Can you undoubtedly prove that the keyboard in front of you is real?You didn't answer my question tho... I'll answer yours when you answer mine.You can see it, smell it, feel it, hear it, and taste it (but only if you really want to), but can you undoubtedly prove that it's actually there?
You have excellent proof that the keyboard in front of you is indeed real, ranging from physically seeing it to touching it and hearing the ticking of the keys, etc, but there is no possible way to prove to a person that the keyboard you claim to exist actually, 100%, undoubtedly exists.
If you can prove me wrong and give me undeniable proof of the keyboard's existance, then by all means, post it here.
-Jiggles-
[QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]Of course ;)SilenthpsOkay, so we're agreed that radiometric dating is an accurate way to measure the age of things then. Would you like us to clear up any other misconceptions you may have?No, we agreed that for things less than 60,000 years we use carbon dating and for things past it we use uranium, potasium and thorium. But not that they are accurate. How are they not accurate? Proof plz.
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="metroidfood"] Okay, so we're agreed that radiometric dating is an accurate way to measure the age of things then. Would you like us to clear up any other misconceptions you may have?p2rusNo, we agreed that for things less than 60,000 years we use carbon dating and for things past it we use uranium, potasium and thorium. But not that they are accurate. This is where you either provide us with some facts, or you leave. No facts, just a question. So how do we know how old something is?
[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]No, we agreed that for things less than 60,000 years we use carbon dating and for things past it we use uranium, potasium and thorium. But not that they are accurate. SilenthpsThis is where you either provide us with some facts, or you leave. No facts, just a question. So how do we know how old something is? By using a scientifically proven method for dating it. Such as radiometric dating.
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="p2rus"]This is where you either provide us with some facts, or you leave. metroidfoodNo facts, just a question. So how do we know how old something is? By using a scientifically proven method for dating it. Such as radiometric dating. Ok thanks :)
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.1 - The rate of fossilization varies greatly. Fossils can be formed rather quickly, yes, but it can takes hundreds of thousands of years (note: more than 6,000 years) for other fossils to form. Also, you have yet to prove how carbon dating is faulty.
2 - Yet your initial premise is still wrong.
3 - No, it's not a religion. Your willful ignorance is blinding you from the facts once again. Evolution is a scientific theory that has brought many benefits to the world. Vaccines, genetic engineering, gene therapy, medicines, antibiotics and many other areas of medical healthcare would not be present today if it weren't for the theory of evolution.
4 - I highly doubt you were taught evolution because your incredible lack of knowledge regarding the many areas of it is astounding. If you knew anything about evolution, not just the crocoduck-ludicrous assumptions brought up by the illiterate, then you would know that many intelligent people thoroughly understand the theory, not just the evil, bible-burning atheists you are so quick to attack.
I was raised in a private school for about 8 years of my life, and I was mainly taught about the christian religion. For a long time I was told how God created the world and how we're suppose to follow his divine law, and I was also taught that the theory of evolution was incorrect. My teachers and students adviced me to study the many areas of the christian faith in order to cement my beliefs in God further than they already were. And I did. What I also did, however, was study the sciences that I wasn't yet taught about in the Christian school I attended. Evolution was one of the fields of science I studied as well.
At the time, I found evolution to be stupid, but with further research of other fields of biology, such as heredity, organ systems and animal behavior, I became to understand evolution more thoroughly. I eventually mixed the concepts of evolution into my christian faith and used the scientific knowledge to help benefit my own beliefs. As time passed and I entered into high school, my belief in Christianity was lost after I was taught by professional sources in my new schools about physics, biology and chemistry.
I didn't join any "atheist religion." It was only 2 years after I dropped my faith in Christianity that I even realized what an atheist was. What drove me forward was what I studied and believed to be true, just as how your faith in Christianity now drives you forward. I have examined both sides of the arguement and, despite the fact that a Christian-esque world seems much more delightful and meaningful than the harsh reality of life, I just follow what I, and many others, believe to be true. I would like to ask you, then, how I truly am being biased. Is it just because I accept a belief that you don't? Is it because I don't pray to the Christian god or read the Bible anymore? Is it because you somehow feel threatened by the existance of evolution, despite the fact that the theory itself makes no attempt at disproving God? I would like answers, because you seem to be the typical religious extemist who runs his/her mouth off whenever somebody doesn't agree with his primitive point of view.
The only people who are biased are the fanatics of any kind. The people who are willing the voluntarily deny evidence of any sort just to hopelessly grasp onto their own ancient beliefs. The people who are willing to block their ears, close their eyes and scream out, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when you apply logic and reasoning to an arguement are the ones who enclose their narrow point of view on life. It is these individuals who constantly hold back humanity as a whole by blindly following their own beliefs while arrogantly denying the beliefs of others without even studying them afterwards. It is the pitiful, insecure extremists, like yourself, that refuse to educate themselves about the world around them and never attempt to aid in the progression of society around them. For each step forward the scientific community tries to take, there will always be religious fanatics that hold science's feet down like lead weights, crying out that some theory presented contradicts their own and, despite being supported by more evidence than any arguement previously presented, insist that their own religious views are right and everything else that opposes them is wrong.
You call me biased? Take a look in the mirror, child, and face the harsh reality of life.
Silenthps
2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
1 - Carbon dating works for approximately 60,000 years, that much is true, but carbon dating isn't used in determining if fossils are over a million years old or not. That job belongs to radiometric dating, and is usually used alongside carbon dating in order to give accurate results on how the age of prehistorical artifacts and fossils, for example, a T-Rex fossil, is determined. Obviously, for fossils over 60,000 years of age, they would primarily use radiometric dating alone, but for anything under 60,000 years, carbon dating has proven itself to be quite accurate. In reality, the whole arguement about carbon dating revolves around misconceptions of the uninformed.
2 - Would you like to explain yourself more clearly, then?
3 - And because it's a part of microevolution, it is automatically associated with macroevolution as well. Remember, seconds and hours; same concept, different timeframes.
4 - And again you generalize about atheism and bring up ironic statements that I simply have to chuckle at, nothing more. Yes, I called you a liar, and the fact that you know so little about evolution backs such a fact up.
I don't know if you read my post or just skimmed through it, because you made a couple of mistakes within your own. I studied both Christianity and science at the same tim for a long time, the only thing that changed was that I gained a better understanding of the world around me where-as all you seem to be content upon doing is nitpicking at a theory you don't understand and using it to put down whatever you don't agree with. Instead of trying to use knowledge to put down another's beliefs, why not use knowledge to uphold your own?
Again I say, look in the mirror. You have a lot to learn about life and confining yourself to a tiny little bubble of happy space that-is religious bias won't gain you any valuable knowledge.
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]Can you undoubtedly prove that the keyboard in front of you is real?You didn't answer my question tho... I'll answer yours when you answer mine.You can see it, smell it, feel it, hear it, and taste it (but only if you really want to), but can you undoubtedly prove that it's actually there?
You have excellent proof that the keyboard in front of you is indeed real, ranging from physically seeing it to touching it and hearing the ticking of the keys, etc, but there is no possible way to prove to a person that the keyboard you claim to exist actually, 100%, undoubtedly exists.
If you can prove me wrong and give me undeniable proof of the keyboard's existance, then by all means, post it here.
battlefront23
Sorry if my answer wasn't clear, but I'm using an example to uphold my arguement.
That's how science finds evidence after all, through experimentation.
ignorence is bliss;)
Most people that deny it do not understand it. Many times it is because they have been lied to about what evolution really is. Some people just refuse to understand it. They might not even understand the basic concepts of science, such as the difference between a theory and scientific theory.
Then there are people like Mysterylobster who think that God just made it look like that because it looks pretty.
At least those are the main things from what I have seen.
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.1 - The rate of fossilization varies greatly. Fossils can be formed rather quickly, yes, but it can takes hundreds of thousands of years (note: more than 6,000 years) for other fossils to form. Also, you have yet to prove how carbon dating is faulty.
2 - Yet your initial premise is still wrong.
3 - No, it's not a religion. Your willful ignorance is blinding you from the facts once again. Evolution is a scientific theory that has brought many benefits to the world. Vaccines, genetic engineering, gene therapy, medicines, antibiotics and many other areas of medical healthcare would not be present today if it weren't for the theory of evolution.
4 - I highly doubt you were taught evolution because your incredible lack of knowledge regarding the many areas of it is astounding. If you knew anything about evolution, not just the crocoduck-ludicrous assumptions brought up by the illiterate, then you would know that many intelligent people thoroughly understand the theory, not just the evil, bible-burning atheists you are so quick to attack.
I was raised in a private school for about 8 years of my life, and I was mainly taught about the christian religion. For a long time I was told how God created the world and how we're suppose to follow his divine law, and I was also taught that the theory of evolution was incorrect. My teachers and students adviced me to study the many areas of the christian faith in order to cement my beliefs in God further than they already were. And I did. What I also did, however, was study the sciences that I wasn't yet taught about in the Christian school I attended. Evolution was one of the fields of science I studied as well.
At the time, I found evolution to be stupid, but with further research of other fields of biology, such as heredity, organ systems and animal behavior, I became to understand evolution more thoroughly. I eventually mixed the concepts of evolution into my christian faith and used the scientific knowledge to help benefit my own beliefs. As time passed and I entered into high school, my belief in Christianity was lost after I was taught by professional sources in my new schools about physics, biology and chemistry.
I didn't join any "atheist religion." It was only 2 years after I dropped my faith in Christianity that I even realized what an atheist was. What drove me forward was what I studied and believed to be true, just as how your faith in Christianity now drives you forward. I have examined both sides of the arguement and, despite the fact that a Christian-esque world seems much more delightful and meaningful than the harsh reality of life, I just follow what I, and many others, believe to be true. I would like to ask you, then, how I truly am being biased. Is it just because I accept a belief that you don't? Is it because I don't pray to the Christian god or read the Bible anymore? Is it because you somehow feel threatened by the existance of evolution, despite the fact that the theory itself makes no attempt at disproving God? I would like answers, because you seem to be the typical religious extemist who runs his/her mouth off whenever somebody doesn't agree with his primitive point of view.
The only people who are biased are the fanatics of any kind. The people who are willing the voluntarily deny evidence of any sort just to hopelessly grasp onto their own ancient beliefs. The people who are willing to block their ears, close their eyes and scream out, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when you apply logic and reasoning to an arguement are the ones who enclose their narrow point of view on life. It is these individuals who constantly hold back humanity as a whole by blindly following their own beliefs while arrogantly denying the beliefs of others without even studying them afterwards. It is the pitiful, insecure extremists, like yourself, that refuse to educate themselves about the world around them and never attempt to aid in the progression of society around them. For each step forward the scientific community tries to take, there will always be religious fanatics that hold science's feet down like lead weights, crying out that some theory presented contradicts their own and, despite being supported by more evidence than any arguement previously presented, insist that their own religious views are right and everything else that opposes them is wrong.
You call me biased? Take a look in the mirror, child, and face the harsh reality of life.
-Jiggles-
2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
1 - Carbon dating works for approximately 60,000 years, that much is true, but carbon dating isn't used in determining if fossils are over a million years old or not. That job belongs to radiometric dating, and is usually used alongside carbon dating in order to give accurate results on how the age of prehistorical artifacts and fossils, for example, a T-Rex fossil, is determined. Obviously, for fossils over 60,000 years of age, they would primarily use radiometric dating alone, but for anything under 60,000 years, carbon dating has proven itself to be quite accurate. In reality, the whole arguement about carbon dating revolves around misconceptions of the uninformed.
2 - Would you like to explain yourself more clearly, then?
3 - And because it's a part of microevolution, it is automatically associated with macroevolution as well. Remember, seconds and hours; same concept, different timeframes.
4 - And again you generalize about atheism and bring up ironic statements that I simply have to chuckle at, nothing more. Yes, I called you a liar, and the fact that you know so little about evolution backs such a fact up.
I don't know if you read my post or just skimmed through it, because you made a couple of mistakes within your own. I studied both Christianity and science at the same tim for a long time, the only thing that changed was that I gained a better understanding of the world around me where-as all you seem to be content upon doing is nitpicking at a theory you don't understand and using it to put down whatever you don't agree with. Instead of trying to use knowledge to put down another's beliefs, why not use knowledge to uphold your own?
Again I say, look in the mirror. You have a lot to learn about life and confining yourself to a tiny little bubble of happy space that-is religious bias won't gain you any valuable knowledge.
1. Of course it doesn't. YOU were the one who made the mistake of talking about carbon dating when I was talking about dino fossils. Yet your the one saying I don't know anything about evolution :lol: 2. lost my motivation 3. Ugh, again with this logic of comparing evolution to math... 4. How do you come up with the conclusion that I know so little about evolution when I haven't made an attempt to explain or debate it? Btw I was talking about studying creationism and evolution not christianity and evolution.ignorence is bliss;)
Most people that deny it do not understand it. Many times it is because they have been lied to about what evolution really is. Some people just refuse to understand it. They might not even understand the basic concepts of science, such as the difference between a theory and scientific theory.
Then there are people like Mysterylobster who think that God just made it look like that because it looks pretty.
At least those are the main things from what I have seen.
Guybrush_3
I have to agree. The primary reason that I've noticed is that they are either uninformed on the issue, misinformed or are just willfully ignorant.
Wow, I guess I am the complete opposite of what you guys are stereotyping. I graduated with a physics major and am currently working as an engineer. I understand evolution very well and I have one of the most "logical" minds of anyone I know. Instead of saying that logic proves evolution, I say logic actually disproves it (or at least makes it seem rediculous). Logically and biologically, evolution isn't grounded in fact, more on assumption - and we all know what they say about assumptions. Notice I will never say that evolution 100% didn't happen, nor should anyone, nor should anyone say that it 100% did happen, as none of us were there. And that is my first point. Scientists say that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and as a physicist, I tend to believe this (though again, because we weren't there, we are under the assumption that the period after the big bang held the same laws of physics as we see currently, which new research says probably isn't realistic and it probably had laws well beyond what we currently understand - aka, who know how long intersteller dust needed to spin and compress in order to start creating fusion and suns.....)
So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that gives us approximately 4500000000/15 = (we are estimating ~ 15 years between generations, on average, of all species ever to exist on earth). That gives us 300 million generations to get from dust to current forms of living matter, with setbacks every 65 million years (the solar system is moving throughout the Milky Way, and recent evidence shows that once every approximately 65 million years, we enter an area of the Milky Way that is ripe for extinctions (the tail of the Milky Way as it is also moving throughout the universe).
So step one is to realize that a simple adaptation such as eskimos having squinty eyes due to them living in the arctic where sun reflects off the ice into the eyes, happen constantly. No one can deny this. There is a sharp distinction between this adaptation and the genetic mutation that causes species jumps. Imagine with me that we have a few cell organism. Radiation from the sun somehow mutates a gene to have a different DNA sequence that causes an RNA strand to create a gene that creates a protein that makes lung tissue in an aquatic animal. What do you think the probablilty of a gene mutation like that is? Also, what do you think the probability of that gene appearing in a fish so readily, that it doesn't disappear over the next few generations simply because there is no need for it. Fish didn't evolve lungs and then instantly use them. That means survival of the fitest did not apply. Early lungs would be non functioning (extra appendages). That means, there is a probability that these would disappear because they did not help that creature in any way.
So really, we are looking at a mathematical probability. What is the probability that within 300,000,000 generations, there was a genetic mutation that occurred at exactly the right time in history, and exactly the functionality necessary for the survival and eventual thriving of a species.
Not that great. Sure it is easy to take a virus and prove evolution as they reproduce very quickly. But once you get into multicelled organisms and talk of gene mutation spawning such things as organs and lungs, you really get into probabilities much to high for the current time frame.
Next is the fact that scientists don't have a clear picture of what was happening in history. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and scientists have found even 100,000 unique locations based on different times in history (which isn't true in the least), that gives them a snapshot of only .002% of all of history.....hmmm, it then makes sense that they can complete the history of all species with that much information. It's so nice to hear they have so much data. Add into that the fact that when they do make a discovery, it is based on a specific location and sitution in history. If you found fossils from the everglades today 350 million years from now, you would be pretty sure that evolution had only reached the reptilian stage because that is all you would see. You would see crocodiles, alligators, fish and sea creatures in a swamp land. You see such a small part of the world.....so actually, your .002% view is only of .002% of the earth at taht moment. So really you only have a .0000004% view of anything.....
So if you add together the fact that the probabilities of genetic mutations and the fact that scientists actually have no idea what happened over 99.9% of history, you have a pretty AMAZING theory called evolution. My logic tells me not to believe things that are so horribly supported. (I have other reasons, but I am off to bed)/
But go ahead and blindly agree with what "scientists" have to say without thinking for yourselves.....oh wait, that is exactly what you say about creationists.
4. How do you come up with the conclusion that I know so little about evolution when I haven't made an attempt to explain or debate it? Btw I was talking about studying creationism and evolution not christianity and evolution. Silenthps
well you don't seem to understand that macroevolution and microevolution are the samething just on different timescales.
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]1. The fact that it only works for 60,000 years should be proof enough.2. Or maybe you misunderstood.
3. All those are due to Microevolution
4. This arguement is pretty pointless but I like how you basically call me a liar with nothing to back it up. Like I said, I was taught evolution in public school, studied it on my own freetime, believed and understood it %99. And unlike in your situation where you solely focused on studying one area. I studied them both consecutivly at the same time. I honestly don't know if your actually replying to me or just having a little atheist rant because I clearly stated that I could be a theistic evolution or creationist at anytime. So idk why you keep bringing up the "u only reject evolution b/c it contradicts the bible lolz" argument. Just because you was raised in a private christian school that blocks out all information you come to the conclusion that all creationist are like that. I wasn't even raised to be a Christian. The fact still remains. I can believe in evolution and Jesus at the same time where as you cant believe in creation yet still be an atheist.
Silenthps
1 - Carbon dating works for approximately 60,000 years, that much is true, but carbon dating isn't used in determining if fossils are over a million years old or not. That job belongs to radiometric dating, and is usually used alongside carbon dating in order to give accurate results on how the age of prehistorical artifacts and fossils, for example, a T-Rex fossil, is determined. Obviously, for fossils over 60,000 years of age, they would primarily use radiometric dating alone, but for anything under 60,000 years, carbon dating has proven itself to be quite accurate. In reality, the whole arguement about carbon dating revolves around misconceptions of the uninformed.
2 - Would you like to explain yourself more clearly, then?
3 - And because it's a part of microevolution, it is automatically associated with macroevolution as well. Remember, seconds and hours; same concept, different timeframes.
4 - And again you generalize about atheism and bring up ironic statements that I simply have to chuckle at, nothing more. Yes, I called you a liar, and the fact that you know so little about evolution backs such a fact up.
I don't know if you read my post or just skimmed through it, because you made a couple of mistakes within your own. I studied both Christianity and science at the same tim for a long time, the only thing that changed was that I gained a better understanding of the world around me where-as all you seem to be content upon doing is nitpicking at a theory you don't understand and using it to put down whatever you don't agree with. Instead of trying to use knowledge to put down another's beliefs, why not use knowledge to uphold your own?
Again I say, look in the mirror. You have a lot to learn about life and confining yourself to a tiny little bubble of happy space that-is religious bias won't gain you any valuable knowledge.
1. Of course it doesn't. YOU were the one who made the mistake of talking about carbon dating when I was talking about dino fossils. Yet your the one saying I don't know anything about evolution :lol: 2. lost my motivation 3. Ugh, again with this logic of comparing evolution to math... 4. How do you come up with the conclusion that I know so little about evolution when I haven't made an attempt to explain or debate it? Btw I was talking about studying creationism and evolution not christianity and evolution.1 - I was referring to early history fossils, not of those that are beyond the 60k limit. You seem to like nitpicking at arguements, huh?
2 - That's a shame.
3 - Too much for your mind to handle?
4 - Because many of the things you have already stated in this thread and within posts of your past easily suggest that your knowledge of evolution is... bleak. The fact that you even use the term "evolutionist" seriously proves that.
its a theory thats whyfreshgman
this.
(we are estimating ~ 15 years between generations, on average, of all species ever to exist on earth)
seabiscuit8686
just wondering where did you get this number?
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]1. Of course it doesn't. YOU were the one who made the mistake of talking about carbon dating when I was talking about dino fossils. Yet your the one saying I don't know anything about evolution :lol: 2. lost my motivation 3. Ugh, again with this logic of comparing evolution to math... 4. How do you come up with the conclusion that I know so little about evolution when I haven't made an attempt to explain or debate it? Btw I was talking about studying creationism and evolution not christianity and evolution.1 - Carbon dating works for approximately 60,000 years, that much is true, but carbon dating isn't used in determining if fossils are over a million years old or not. That job belongs to radiometric dating, and is usually used alongside carbon dating in order to give accurate results on how the age of prehistorical artifacts and fossils, for example, a T-Rex fossil, is determined. Obviously, for fossils over 60,000 years of age, they would primarily use radiometric dating alone, but for anything under 60,000 years, carbon dating has proven itself to be quite accurate. In reality, the whole arguement about carbon dating revolves around misconceptions of the uninformed.
2 - Would you like to explain yourself more clearly, then?
3 - And because it's a part of microevolution, it is automatically associated with macroevolution as well. Remember, seconds and hours; same concept, different timeframes.
4 - And again you generalize about atheism and bring up ironic statements that I simply have to chuckle at, nothing more. Yes, I called you a liar, and the fact that you know so little about evolution backs such a fact up.
I don't know if you read my post or just skimmed through it, because you made a couple of mistakes within your own. I studied both Christianity and science at the same tim for a long time, the only thing that changed was that I gained a better understanding of the world around me where-as all you seem to be content upon doing is nitpicking at a theory you don't understand and using it to put down whatever you don't agree with. Instead of trying to use knowledge to put down another's beliefs, why not use knowledge to uphold your own?
Again I say, look in the mirror. You have a lot to learn about life and confining yourself to a tiny little bubble of happy space that-is religious bias won't gain you any valuable knowledge.
-Jiggles-
1 - I was referring to early history fossils, not of those that are beyond the 60k limit. You seem to like nitpicking at arguements, huh?
2 - That's a shame.
3 - Too much for your mind to handle?
4 - Because many of the things you have already stated in this thread and within posts of your past easily suggest that your knowledge of evolution is... bleak. The fact that you even use the term "evolutionist" seriously proves that.
5. Suuuuuure. Now look who's the liar ;)6. I know right?
7. Actually it's the opposite. It's too simple.
8. Which statements have i made that suggest my knowledge of evolution is bleak? Mostly everything I've been talking about this whole time is dating which doesn't really relate to evolution that much. btw i love the generalization creationist dont understand evolution and that if they claim they do they must be a liar.
So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that gives us approximately 4500000000/15 = (we are estimating ~ 15 years between generations, on average, of all species ever to exist on earth). That gives us 300 million generations to get from dust to current forms of living matter, with setbacks every 65 million years (the solar system is moving throughout the Milky Way, and recent evidence shows that once every approximately 65 million years, we enter an area of the Milky Way that is ripe for extinctions (the tail of the Milky Way as it is also moving throughout the universe).
First mistake: applying a human timescale to every species ever. Also, there are no setbacks. 65 million years ago, the dinos went extinct and allowed the mammals to take over the Earth. Mammals survived, thus making them the superior creatures in the eyes of natural selection.
So step one is to realize that a simple adaptation such as eskimos having squinty eyes due to them living in the arctic where sun reflects off the ice into the eyes, happen constantly. No one can deny this. There is a sharp distinction between this adaptation and the genetic mutation that causes species jumps. Imagine with me that we have a few cell organism. Radiation from the sun somehow mutates a gene to have a different DNA sequence that causes an RNA strand to create a gene that creates a protein that makes lung tissue in an aquatic animal. What do you think the probablilty of a gene mutation like that is? Also, what do you think the probability of that gene appearing in a fish so readily, that it doesn't disappear over the next few generations simply because there is no need for it. Fish didn't evolve lungs and then instantly use them. That means survival of the fitest did not apply. Early lungs would be non functioning (extra appendages). That means, there is a probability that these would disappear because they did not help that creature in any way.
Not true. Early forms of appendages are usually transitional forms of other appendages (such as fins to feet). Also mutation occur at an incredibly rapid rate. Most are either corrected, don't do anything, or reduce the chances of survival. But it only takes a single lucky nucleotide placement to give an organism a HUGE advantage.
So really, we are looking at a mathematical probability. What is the probability that within 300,000,000 generations, there was a genetic mutation that occurred at exactly the right time in history, and exactly the functionality necessary for the survival and eventual thriving of a species.
This is why reproduction produces more offspring than can be supported by the environment. This is where natural selection comes in. Plus, there are many ways that an organism can adapt to give it an advantage, just because it turned out one way doesn't mean that was the only possible solution.
Not that great. Sure it is easy to take a virus and prove evolution as they reproduce very quickly. But once you get into multicelled organisms and talk of gene mutation spawning such things as organs and lungs, you really get into probabilities much to high for the current time frame.
This is why most of the more recent evolution has had to do with speciation rather than single celled organisms going to multicelled organisms.
Next is the fact that scientists don't have a clear picture of what was happening in history. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and scientists have found even 100,000 unique locations based on different times in history (which isn't true in the least), that gives them a snapshot of only .002% of all of history.....hmmm, it then makes sense that they can complete the history of all species with that much information. It's so nice to hear they have so much data. Add into that the fact that when they do make a discovery, it is based on a specific location and sitution in history. If you found fossils from the everglades today 350 million years from now, you would be pretty sure that evolution had only reached the reptilian stage because that is all you would see. You would see crocodiles, alligators, fish and sea creatures in a swamp land. You see such a small part of the world.....so actually, your .002% view is only of .002% of the earth at taht moment. So really you only have a .0000004% view of anything.....
This is why there's more than just fossil evidence for evolution. And likely, you would find other fossils from some other organisms in the same time period in other locations. And even despite the lacking fossil record we STILL have plenty of transitional forms that document subtle changes in the structure of species.
So if you add together the fact that the probabilities of genetic mutations and the fact that scientists actually have no idea what happened over 99.9% of history, you have a pretty AMAZING theory called evolution. My logic tells me not to believe things that are so horribly supported. (I have other reasons, but I am off to bed)/
Mutations are inherently random, you can't calculate probabilities, just averages based on past data. Do you even know how many different ways a mutation can occur? Also, I'll say this again. You left out a lot of evidence. Just because you're a physicist does not make you well informed in all areas of science, nor does it make you unbiased.
But go ahead and blindly agree with what "scientists" have to say without thinking for yourselves.....oh wait, that is exactly what you say about creationists.
I don't blindly agree with scientists, because I see the strong evidence they put forth for evolution and accept it. Also, people usually bash creationists for blindly accepting a hypothesis without any evidence, which is pretty different from evolution.
seabiscuit8686
[QUOTE="freshgman"]its a theory thats whyx_Martyr_x
this.
This? Please. The word "theory" as it applies to the the theory of evolution, gravity, or other scientific theories doesn't mean the same thing that it does in common parlance where theory is used to indicate speculation or conjecture. In science, the word theory is used to indicate a tested and accepted claim based on a large body of evidence. It behooves religious apologists to muddy the waters by misusing the word "theory" in order to obfuscate the facts at hand, which are these: there is virtually zero serious science or scientists that disagree with or have an alternative workable and tested theory that disputes Darwin's work on natural selection.5. Suuuuuure. Now look who's the liar ;)6. I know right?
7. Actually it's the opposite. It's too simple.
8. Which statements have i made that suggest my knowledge of evolution is bleak? Mostly everything I've been talking about this whole time is dating which doesn't really relate to evolution that much. btw i love the generalization creationist dont understand evolution and that if they claim they do they must be a liar.
Silenthps
1 - Yes, you are. I already made this crystal clear. ;)
2 - I was almost convinced you had an actual arguement to contribute to the thread too. Forshame.
3 - So simple... and yet you still fumble over such an easy concept to understand.
4 - Your knowledge of microevolution verse macroevolution is surprisingly slim and something I only see in the uninformed of the masses. Many others here are able to understand such a simple concept with ease, so why can't you? As you said yourself, it's too simple of a concept. Also, the fact that you use the term "evolutionist" shows you are suggesting that evolution is a religion, which you have already stated earlier in this thread. If you knew anything about evolution, anything at all, you would know it's not a religion.
Keep digging yourself deeper into that hole of yours, now. Maybe one day we'll use you as proof of evolution.
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]I love how people accuse evolution-bashers of being ignorant and then they themselves display complete ignorance of religion.
Being religious doesn't necessary mean you don't believe evolution exist. Heck...if you think evolution is BS then you are not a real catholic
Link1515
A Christian or Catholic would never believe in evolution--its contradictory to what they believe. Just as an evolutionist would never believe in Creation.
Nonsense. Pope JP II recognized evolution as proven fact. If you oppose the views of pope you're not real catholicNo, it doesn't.The Catholic church denies evolution.
jakemartin89oi
[QUOTE="jakemartin89oi"]No, it doesn't.The Catholic church denies evolution.
AdrianWerner
Indeed. The last three Popes have promoted evolution and encouraged Christians around the world to learn about and accept it.
[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]Showing that you do not understand what a scientific theory is. Next?
Dark_Knight6
I do understand what a scientific theory is. And there is no absolute proof of evolution.
By definition, a scientific theory has been substantially proven and tested. Otherwise we call it a hypothesis.btw i love the generalization creationist dont understand evolution and that if they claim they do they must be a liar. SilenthpsI've never once seen an exception to that generalisation. There must be a few creationists who have a clue about it, but you're not one of them.
its a theory thats whyfreshgmanAarrrrrrrgggggh *dies*
[QUOTE="freshgman"]its a theory thats whyFunky_LlamaAarrrrrrrgggggh *dies*finally :P
[QUOTE="freshgman"]its a theory thats whyFunky_LlamaAarrrrrrrgggggh *dies* My Avatar will save you!
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="freshgman"]its a theory thats whyGuybrush_3Aarrrrrrrgggggh *dies* My Avatar will save you!Only an indiscriminate application of antibiotic gel can save me now! D:
[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Aarrrrrrrgggggh *dies*Funky_LlamaMy Avatar will save you!Only an indiscriminate application of antibiotic gel can save me now! D:
*uses healing touch to quickly apply absurd amounts of antibiotic gel*
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="jakemartin89oi"]No, it doesn't.The Catholic church denies evolution.
foxhound_fox
Indeed. The last three Popes have promoted evolution and encouraged Christians around the world to learn about and accept it.
Indeedy-deed-deed. I tend to hold a higher respect for Catholics since they are more tolerant than their Christian brothers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment