I don't believe in macro-evolution, neither do scientists or archeologists or palentologists; there has never been a single piece of evidence to support this THEORY, and it is largley discredited in the scientific community since the 1940's.
32 comments
As I promised last time someone trotted out this misuse of the word 'theory', I won't be held responsible for my actions.
Unfortunately, I'm not going to do anything criminal anyway. I'm just going to point and laugh.
"I don't believe in macro-evolution,
It doesn't believe in you, either.
, neither do scientists or archeologists or palentologists;
In Bizarro World.
there has never been a single piece of evidence to support this THEORY,
I could direct you to reams.
and it is largley discredited in the scientific community since the 1940's.
And the source of this assertion is your ass.
Phailed, you have.
"I don't believe in macro-evolution..."
Irrelevent, reality is what it is independent of what you want to be true. By the way to you also not believe in gravity because it's "just a theory?"
Lie #1! From here on in I'm counting willful ignorance as lying.
".....there has never been a single piece of evidence to support this THEORY..."
Lie #2!
"....and it is largley discredited in the scientific community since the 1940's."
Lie #3!
This isn't the Middle Ages. Access to knowledge is easily available. How can they remain this ignorant without trying?
I don't believe in macro-evolution
neither do scientists or archeologists or palentologists
there has never been a single piece of evidence to support this THEORY
and it is largley discredited in the scientific community since the 1940's
I don't believe in macro-evolution, neither do scientists or archeologists or palentologists
That's right. "Macro-evolution" was a term invented by creationists when they could no longer deny evolution in the case of things like antibiotic-resistant bacteria. So they divided evolution into "micro-evolution", which they're pretty much forced to accept on the evidence, and "macro-evolution", which they define as a change in "kind" and which they deny happens. Any time new evidence comes up, they just shift the dividing line between the two and/or redefine "kind"
I would say someone should prove "macro"-evolution in insects, and can figure out how it would be done, but I can't imagine many reputable scientists wanting to waste time convincing people who are trying so hard not to be convinced.
Macro-evolution isn't a theory.
Get your facts straight, bub.
"there has never been a single piece of evidence to support this THEORY, and it is largley discredited in the scientific community since the 1940's."
That will be news to scientists in China, Japan and Europe. They are applying evolutionary theory in their work and making great strides. In fact, they are far outclassing the scientific work that has been coming out of the US.
And yes sister, they are doing it despite your lack of belief in so-called macro-evolution.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
