would you people PLEASE stop. Creation is NOT a push with evolution, nor the fields of nuclear physics, astrophysics, stellar evolution, chemistry, biology, geo would you people PLEASE stop Creation is NOT a push with evolution nor the fields of nuclear physics astrophysics stellar chemistry biology geo
Login or register

would you people PLEASE stop

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
would you people PLEASE stop. Creation is NOT a push with evolution, nor the fields of nuclear physics, astrophysics, stellar evolution, chemistry, biology, geo

Creation is NOT a push with evolution, nor the fields of nuclear physics, astrophysics, stellar evolution, chemistry, biology, geology, or every other scientific field that directly refutes the nonsense in your storybook, so stop looking at them as equally valid ideas already! I'm tired of having to argue the obvious to the functionally retarded!

The formal !?' , T' Tif' latr. ' of ilgili' quite
different from the evea' 3, meaning of 'Al word.
m refers to a com 1' ml' tta'' lettin, ea. cenation of some
aspect of nature [i' i. , is_ suppor tll by itl '
of evedence.
Many !?'.. , memeories are so Realle!! rhh'
that no new evidence is ' to alter
substantially For example, no new evidence will
demonstrate that the Earth its not orbit around
the sun [heliocentric them P, or that living things
are not made of cells eore,’ |, that matter is
not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the
Earth 15 not divided imi'" d who lates that have
moved over gtfo ' time s l the many of
plate tectonics]. .. these othe foundational
fsl, memeories, the theory’ of evolution is
dit. 1 ported by so man observations and
co ' that scientists are
rarley.'. T' lall ma .the basic com nants of the
overturned 3; new evidence.
However, lri! Jed all !t' Jr.'.! ".. theories, the theory‘ of
evolution is subject to continuing‘ Mm' as
new areas of science emerge or as new
techno ' s enable observations and
experiments at were not possible previously."
Views: 7768 Submitted: 06/27/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (13)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
User avatar #8 - stimtheone
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
That's why it's not called a hypothesis.
User avatar #1 - malific
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
So.. I play World of Warcraft.

I go to Un'goro crater, and see dinosaurs and bones and ****. I don archeology and find fossils and such. I go to Sholazar Basin and learn that Oracles evolved from Murloc's. I go to Pandaria and here a story about how Merloc's living in Pandaria with imbued with intelligence by the mystical waters of the content and became the Jin'yu.

Then I go visit Ulduar and learn that the Titans created the entire world, and I have to kill this dude named Algalon so he won't hit the reset button and start all this evolution back to square one.

Is Warcraft Evolution, or Intelligent Design?
User avatar #2 to #1 - IloveWAFFLES
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
Intelligent Evolution.

The start of evolution was made by an Creator, in this case the Titans.
We evolved yet we were created.
#3 to #2 - ozzysite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
Is there an official religion that believes in this? Wouldn't an all powerful being make a system capable of handling it's own **** and adapting to survive rather than just make a set stock of creatures? Isn't THAT a more perfect system than just making things the way you want them?
User avatar #7 to #3 - squiresparkle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
Those are my beliefs, but I don't recognize the spiritual authority of any religion, I just call it noodleology
#4 to #3 - hejlate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
Titans in WoW are not all powerful, they couldn't destroy the old gods for example, they were more like xel'naga in starcraft, they are mortal and corruptible (like sargeras or whatever his name was, i do not remember since it has been a long time since i've played WoW)
User avatar #5 to #4 - Sargeras
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
Yes, like me.

Also, they couldn't destroy the old "Gods" because they're Gods.. But they did imprison them!
#6 to #5 - hejlate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/28/2013) [-]
Meh, close enough, not like they can spread corruption and cause madness and chaos all around them!
User avatar #10 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/24/2013) [-]
There is another aspect to "theory" that is very important. It HAS to have the potential to be proven false. There is the possibility that a discovery could be made that would prove the theory of evolution false. It's not likely, but it's possible. That's what allows it to be a THEORY.

You cannot disprove Creationism. To do so, you would have to prove that there is no God, and there's no way to do that. Just as there is no way to prove the existence of God. Therefore, Creationism cannot ever be a theory.
User avatar #11 to #10 - teranin [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/24/2013) [-]
Actually, you can disprove Creationism, because you can disprove every assertion made by creationism with the exception of the God assertion, furthermore, if the God assertion is defined as the bilbical god, it's existence can also be disproven through the same means. Much in the way that you find a black hole by the effect it has on other things, not by seeing it directly, you can disprove the existence of god by showing that it is not the explanation for any effect on any part of the natural world. Quantum Mechanics disproved the christian god with finality upon it's inception, humanity just hasn't caught up with science yet.

But then, you're an optimist, so I shouldn't try to bring you down. Keep reaching fro that rainbow, Cap'n
User avatar #12 to #11 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/24/2013) [-]
I was very carefully trying to word that to not imply that I believe in Creationism. Because I don't. I may have failed.

My intent was to explain why Creationism should not be referred to (or taught) as a theory. It does not hold to any of the requirements of a theory, including the one that was not mentioned in the post - having the possibility of being disproven.

You could disprove, with logic and science, that the assertions made by Creationism are probably false. However, there is literally no way to actually prove that a magical being who, lets face it, basically defies science in every way imaginable, does or doesn't exist. You can use scientific tests to disprove it based on accepted laws and "truths" of science, but as the magical being in question doesn't follow those laws, you can't prove it in reality. This is what makes it impossible for Creationism to be defined as any kind of science, let alone a theory.
User avatar #13 to #12 - teranin [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/24/2013) [-]
No I got that, I was just disagreeing with your assertion that creationism cannot be disproven. Creationism asserts certain things as being true. Since they can be proven to be false, Creationism is false. Since creationism cannot be used as a predictor for invention or experiment, literally every single time something is done that runs counter to the assertion proves it to be false.

That's all I was saying.
User avatar #9 - pioneermhm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/30/2013) [-]
I once got into a whole argument about this. Took him 8 posts to finally shut up