15 Responses to Creationist Nonsense
15 Responses to Creationist Nonsense
It's a real shame that, in 21st century America, we need articles like this at all.
This reminds me of an argument I got into a few months ago on a message board I sometimes post on. It began when someone asked if evolution was considered a fact or a theory. A few people, none of whom (as far as I know) are creationists, responded that it was a theory. I replied that although there are theories on how evolution works (natural selection being the most prominent), evolution itself is a fact, and I provided a link to back this up. This led to a debate, spearheaded by one person in particular, who argued that the opposite was true. This is a person who had always come across in his posts as rational, intelligent, and level-headed. He isn't a creationist, and he didn't reject evolution outright. Yet, despite the fact that two other people provided similar links, he still maintained that evolution was a theory, and that it was the scientific community who had misunderstood and/or were incorrectly using the word "fact," and that they "needed to spend more time hanging out with English majors."
Then again, this is a guy who also voted for Bush, so I suppose the fact that he was able to willfully ignore the evidence in front of him shouldn't have come as a surprise.
Yes, that was a cheap shot.
It's a real shame that, in 21st century America, we need articles like this at all.
This reminds me of an argument I got into a few months ago on a message board I sometimes post on. It began when someone asked if evolution was considered a fact or a theory. A few people, none of whom (as far as I know) are creationists, responded that it was a theory. I replied that although there are theories on how evolution works (natural selection being the most prominent), evolution itself is a fact, and I provided a link to back this up. This led to a debate, spearheaded by one person in particular, who argued that the opposite was true. This is a person who had always come across in his posts as rational, intelligent, and level-headed. He isn't a creationist, and he didn't reject evolution outright. Yet, despite the fact that two other people provided similar links, he still maintained that evolution was a theory, and that it was the scientific community who had misunderstood and/or were incorrectly using the word "fact," and that they "needed to spend more time hanging out with English majors."
Then again, this is a guy who also voted for Bush, so I suppose the fact that he was able to willfully ignore the evidence in front of him shouldn't have come as a surprise.
Yes, that was a cheap shot.