+26

If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, than we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction, amirite?

53%Yeah You Are47%No Way
Share
10 25
The voters have decided that this post is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

INB4 Scrantonc- Oh wait ...

@Simon INB4 Scrantonc- Oh wait ...

I have a feeling he will post. I have heard humors that he is still here as an anon, posting things. Some people have recognized his writing style. So if there is an anon in a comment war, I have a feeling it is him.

vitaminbs avatar vitaminb Yeah You Are +2Reply
@vitaminb I have a feeling he will post. I have heard humors that he is still here as an anon, posting things. Some people...

Yes, I was talking about that with Spearmintmilk the other day - Anon comments which are from him, and I've had Anon questions on my formspring which had some words I didn't recognise, so I asked Janelle, and she said that Scrantoncity had used them in an argument with her.

Not conclusive proof, I know, but still.

@Simon Yes, I was talking about that with Spearmintmilk the other day - Anon comments which are from him, and I've had...

Yeah, I read a convo between BreakfastFan and Spearmilkmilk saying the same thing.

vitaminbs avatar vitaminb Yeah You Are 0Reply
@vitaminb Yeah, I read a convo between BreakfastFan and Spearmilkmilk saying the same thing.

As well as my FS being trolled, I'm still trying to figure out if he may be the Anon I argued with on this post:

http://www.amirite.net/492813

@Simon As well as my FS being trolled, I'm still trying to figure out if he may be the Anon I argued with on this...

Yeah, I read almost the whole convo (all but the last three messages or so), and it sounds like him.

vitaminbs avatar vitaminb Yeah You Are 0Reply

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. One is about how things started, the other is about how things changed.

Rebels avatar Rebel No Way +10Reply
@Rebel Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. One is about how things started, the other is about how things...

No. If you are a creationist, you believe that God put Adam and Eve on the world. They were humans. The dominant species is still humans. If you are an evolutionist, you believe life started at some point with one single cleed organism. It then reproduced and evloved into all the different species of the world.

@technon No. If you are a creationist, you believe that God put Adam and Eve on the world. They were humans. The dominant...

not necessarily. creationist scientists who believe in evolution believe that god created the first self-replicating cell, and things went on from there.

Anonymous 0Reply
@technon No. If you are a creationist, you believe that God put Adam and Eve on the world. They were humans. The dominant...

What evidence do you have that we all originate from single celled organisms?

Please only respond with scientific evidence... tests that have been run, experiments that have been proven conclusive, etc.

I love how this has so many No Ways, with reasoning that screams "I don't get it"

ProudMarys avatar ProudMary Yeah You Are +6Reply

sarcasm, people.

Anonymous +4Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1087062

what?? of course they do. where have you been?

yddraigarians avatar yddraigarian Yeah You Are +4Reply
@yddraigarian looney tunes.

I was just trying to ask a scientific question, I'm not going to say that evolution didn't happen or doesn't happen, but I will say that Darwinian evolution doe's not happen and the fossil record has shown it doesn't happen. I wont say that the Big Bang didn't happen but I will say that the Big Bang theory is about the universe's expansion and doe's not account for the mass singularity that caused the Big Bang

@ckwbeliever I was just trying to ask a scientific question, I'm not going to say that evolution didn't happen or doesn't...

ah. well you confused me by asking what proof i had that storks actually delivered babies, based on the thread.

it seems that an incomplete dossil record is becoming now what "because the bible says so" used to to be in such debates - yes it may be true, yes it may cause one side to believe they have the high ground, but in the end it can be explaned away. if everything that ever lived got fossilized you wouldn't be a ble to grow tomatoes in your back yard for all the mineralized bone in the way.

yddraigarians avatar yddraigarian Yeah You Are 0Reply
@yddraigarian ah. well you confused me by asking what proof i had that storks actually delivered babies, based on the thread...

What you say about fossilized evidence is true. But what about the Cambrian explosion, which contrary to Darwinian Evolution, is the rapid change and rapid appearance of new types of life and life forms that are drastically different than anything that we had before hand.

We have soft tissued fossils before the explosion and after.
The Cambrian explosion is too big to be explained away by a guess that we don't have fossils that would validate Darwin's theory. People that are against Darwin's theory have concrete proof that it does not occur the way Darwin thought. Darwin even conceded that the fossil record does not support his assertions.

The burden of proof is on Darwinists, and until they can supply the world with sufficient fossil records to connect what we have post Cambrian explosion to what we had pre Cambrian explosion, I refuse to believe in such fairy tales.

@ckwbeliever What you say about fossilized evidence is true. But what about the Cambrian explosion, which contrary to Darwinian...

granted, in some occasions, the cambrian explosion especially, more may have been at work than simple natural selection. nevertheless, once land ecosystems and the like were present and had begun to equilibrate, natural selection would have taken over. in the short term, natural selection has been observed to occur, so i ope you wouldn't dispute its existence entirely.

i am curious though, how would you go about explaining the cambrian phenomenon?

yddraigarians avatar yddraigarian Yeah You Are 0Reply
@yddraigarian granted, in some occasions, the cambrian explosion especially, more may have been at work than simple natural...

I think small scale natural selection has occurred, but I've seen no evidence that supports the assumption that large scale natural selection has occurred.
Pertaining to the Cambrian explosion, I believe it points towards intelligent design. There are animals that we have fossils of that don't have ancestors like Darwinism says they should. There are also irreducibly complex small celled organisms that are around that can only function as a complete whole. Darwinism states that beings must occur and then evolve to their surroundings, but an irreducibly complex organism can only survive with all of their parts.

I think that for the most part origin of life science, geology, and other sciences actually support intelligent design.

the reason they dont teach creationism in public schools is because it's a religious theory. evolution is part of science, which they teach in public schools, so it would make sense that they would teach evolution. also, the stork thing isn't a theory, it's something parents tell their children so they don't have to tell them the truth, not something that people that are on a level to decide what's real and what's not for themselves actually believe. so much flawed logic, so little time.

brunetterox915s avatar brunetterox915 Yeah You Are +3Reply

I say that if you want your child learning a nonscientific theory, send your kids to a private school or homeschool them.

eldoritos avatar eldorito Yeah You Are +2Reply

Because getting dumped on your parents' doorsteps by birds totally has just as much basis in research as evolution, if not more, right?

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.