Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Hey Creationists! It's been a while and i'm ready for some more debates about EVOLUTION! Yeah!

Specifically, i'm interested in debating the evidence we can observe in our world an how that evidence is better explained by an evolutionary model than a creation model.

Let's do this!😀
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@MalteseFalconPunch So citing Wikipedia is not sourcing from Wikipedia? Are you serious? In the article you cited it says that the 'transition fossils' are at most fragments of maybe a jaw or a partial limb. I watched in amazement a few years ago when someone found a partial maybe skull. There was so little of it no one could be certain what it was. However that did not stop the 'scientists' from creating a whole semi human looking creature with a hairy body and human face. I laughed so hard tears running down my face. Yeah that is a sure way to convince the suckers.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
BethKCZ · 56-60, F
@MalteseFalconPunch Indeed. Theories are refined, replaced, or scrapped as more information becomes known, better discoveries are made, and better models are developed. It's an incremental process toward the truth. It will never uncover all of the truth.

Frauds and outright wrong theories come into existence from time-to-time. However, the constant peer review process causes those frauds to be discovered or the wrong theory to be debunked. For instance, Nebraska Man. The fact that they *do* discover wrong information that creeps into science is an indication that the process works, not that it doesn't work.

Religion, OTOH, starts with the truth, and as more things are found and learned, those must be ignored, models must be created to incorporate the tenets of the faith, and no part of the religion must ever be scrapped, or viewed as wrong.

A major problem with religionists and especially creationists is not so much that they reject science or it's theories. They cast aspersions on the scientific method. They teach "knowledge" they have which did not use this method on par with scientific knowledge, or above it. Science education is what suffers as a result, and our next generations do not have the best basis from which they can continue scientific advancement.