More than 2/3 of Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution

Just a theory?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Please, get a refund on your BSEE....

He can't get a refund. He ate all of the Cracker Jacks that it came with.

I know that the earth revolves around the son, which is probably more than you two know.

You mean the "SUN?"
 
That doesn't make the dinosaur a different species though. It makes those dinosaurs that evolved into birds an earlier version of bird not a separate species.
Wow you are explaining your earlier ignorance with even more ignorance.

Please review the biological classification tree you learned in 10th grade then come back to the thread, it will save you a lot of looking like a dumbass.

So far, you are the only dumbass. You need a science course.

He said 10th grade and you didn't get past 7th.

Dang.
 
Did they find the talking monkeys??????

Not sure what you are saying here. Humans were probably the first animal to speak.

They are part of a very long line of evolution that goes back about 20 million years.

marjorie-science-11-biology-evolution-human-evolution-key-hominid-species-skulls-article.jpg

I call it pseudoscience.
Look at your chart and see how very little actual bones are there and then they fill in the rest.
Rather than gathering facts, they take fragments and turn them into our ancestors.

The facts show, there are no living intermediates – all of the supposed ancestors of man have died out – they are extinct. Therefore it is the task of “science” to reconstruct these alleged ancestors. We have monkeys and we have humans in the world today – but we don’t have the living relatives between. It is the responsibility, therefore, of “science,” to fill in the gaps.

This is where it becomes interesting. Especially for people who are not so easily convinced that the “story of our origins” is “good science.” Good science must be based on good observations that provide sound conclusions.

When I see a painting, or a mode,l or the chart you put up, of an alleged ancestor that is based on a fragment of a jaw, a toe bone, or a footprint that looks like modern humans, I wonder how scientific this “story” really is. Is it possible a story is being told that is based on biased assumptions in order to provide evidence that isn’t evidence at all?
Many people question this.

Lucy_(Frankfurt_am_Main).jpg


hqdefault.jpg


060920-lucys-baby_big.jpg


360_hominid_skeleton_0407.jpg


lucy2skullhand.jpg


1158812766_0580.jpg


teeth.jpg


lucy_donaldcjohanson.jpg


theres-more-than-one-lucy-responding-to-buzzf-L-VU7Xxn.png


360_johanson_lucy_0304.jpg
 
Last edited:
ah yes, another thread posted just to look down your noses at people

Everyone has their own beliefs..
 
Ya know, dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bibles. Nothing about giant T-Rex creatures going into caves, Pterodactyls plucking people off of terra-firma. Obviously this means one thing.

If you ask Republicans...dinosaurs are a liberal invention.
Your mileage may vary.
 
At best, at the very most, human beings evolved from an earlier species of human beings. There has never been a species that evolved from another species.

Not technically true. Species being a human construct. Species meaning, can the two animals mate. What I think you meant is that there is little evidence of evolution causing a bird to become something other then a different specie of bird.
 
Ya know, dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bibles. Nothing about giant T-Rex creatures going into caves, Pterodactyls plucking people off of terra-firma. Obviously this means one thing.

If you ask Republicans...dinosaurs are a liberal invention.
Your mileage may vary.

The reason why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible is because the Bible traces only the lineage of Jesus and doesn't need to address the issue of dinosaurs.
 

Forum List

Back
Top