If scientists...

If an overwhelming number of scientists came out and said that the theory of evolution was a hoax, how many of you would believe them and how many of you would stick with the theory of evolution?:confused: So do you believe in evolution because scientists do or because you're certain of its validity regardless of what scientists say? :confused:

I accept evolutionary theory based upon three things:

1. Evidence. I can look at the collected data and do the measurements myself. I can review all the work done and point out ANY mistakes I find. This is called "peer review" and is what makes sure the data is correct. Remember the cold fusion debacle? Peer review nixed that one.

There are libraries of evidence and data. Everything from the fossil record to genetic mutations used to cure disease.

2. Practical application. The data collected can be applied to uses in everyday life. Medicine and agriculture are excellent examples. Flu shots and bananas for the layman.

3. It fits. Everything stated in evolutionary biology fits perfectly with everything else known to be true. It plays by the same rules, works within the same framework. It is logical and straightforward. I do not need to suspend reality and rely on the supernatural for answers.
Today 12:06 AM
Nothing fits, absolutely nothing. And that's still why no one knows the origin of man except Christians.

Collected data are what?

If an overwhelming number of scientists came out and said that the theory of evolution was a hoax, how many of you would believe them and how many of you would stick with the theory of evolution?:confused: So do you believe in evolution because scientists do or because you're certain of its validity regardless of what scientists say? :confused:

I believe evolution because of the overwhelming evidence, not because of what scientists say.

Then if most scientists come out and say that evolution is a hoax, you'll still believe that monkeys, excuse me, imaginary animals can turn into people. Is that correct? :rollinglaugh: If so, then it fits with your other delusions.

There is nothing imaginary about this:




Just because you are ignorant of extant fauna and prehistoric zoology, doesn't make it imaginary.

But continue your tirade of denial, it truly is amusing to say the least.

:rollinglaugh: No it's not imaginary at all. It's skull fragments pieced together. There are so many cracks in it that it wasn't even a good patch job. :rollinglaugh: You should have seen the first "skull' archeoogists found. It was a small flat rock the size of a person's palm. :rollinglaugh: They made up a long name for it and claimed they invented a new creature, which of course they did.

Collected data are what? Skulls and bones of many different animals and humans that are peiced together to form creatures never before mentioned in history? Sorry, but again, that's called artwork, not science.

Again, interpreting fossils are as subjective as interpreting contemporary artwork...especially since scientists only have one end of the chain, namely, humans. So they have no clue what type of animal "evolved" into humans and thus don't know what they're looking for.

What's practical about claiming that imaginary animals turned into people? :eek: flu shots have nothing whatsoever to do with the story of evolution. A bacterial or viral cell becomes more virulent, more like itself than another cell. And vaccines like penicillin were discovered by accident. So using the bacteria to prevent bacteria is no different than fighting fire with fire. So it's connection to the story of evolution is non-existent. :rolleyes:

But you still haven't answered the question in the OP. If scientists came out and called evolution a hoax, would you believe them, or the story of evolution?

Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. You honestly think we're the be-all, end-all? Really? You think it's all about what led to humans?

Sorry but the theory of "evolution" came because Darwin is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that something superior can come from something inferior. That is impossible. The clay does not form the potter.

So he created a voluminous story trying to figure out how to make something impossible possible. That's why his story is so long and unfinished.

It take volumes of material to try to claim that one animal can pass along genes he doesn't have to another animal because it's an impossibility.

Nevertheless, because he got a book published, people blindly accepted his impossible, contradictory, convoluted and unfinished story as true. :rollinglaugh: And because of that, they throw the word "mutation" around to explain every single different animal because they erroneously think that semantics can change reality. :eek:

Sorry but the theory of "evolution" came because Darwin is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that something superior can come from something inferior. That is impossible. The clay does not form the potter.

So he created a voluminous story trying to figure out how to make something impossible possible. That's why his story is so long and unfinished.

It take volumes of material to try to claim that one animal can pass along genes he doesn't have to another animal because it's an impossibility.

Nevertheless, because he got a book published, people blindly accepted his impossible, contradictory, convoluted and unfinished story as true.

:rollinglaugh: And because of that, they throw the word "mutation" around to explain every single different animal because they erroneously think that semantics can change reality. :eek: