The Evolution Debate

[SteveAJones]

2 hours ago, slipnslider said:

The power of brainwashing.

Religion needed evolution to be false in order to maintain religious power and fortune.

Just like oil billionaires need climate change to be false in order to maintain their power and fortune.

If science proves your specialty is wrong, then your only option is to attack science as corrupt, fake, or incorrect.

Then you legally buy off some legislators with campaign donations, and your puppets allow you to pollute the planet in to oblivion.

Conservatives will truly be the downfall of the human species.

That post is so low on intellectual horsepower I'm surprised your fingers found the keys.

[slipnslider]

2 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Presenting all opinions as equally valid is not a magnanimous endeavour when used as a shield to protect one's own, incorrect, opinions.

That's conservatives' whole approach to media.   "Fair and balanced"  Giving equal weight to a climate scientist and ted nugent's opinions on climate change.

1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

That post is so low on intellectual horsepower I'm surprised your fingers found the keys.

And once again, you can't refute any of it, so you resort to insults.

[PappyTron]

5 minutes ago, slipnslider said:

That's conservatives' whole approach to media.   "Fair and balanced"  Giving equal weight to a climate scientist and ted nugent's opinions on climate change.

Yes, but you are talking about non specific people, lumping "conservatives" into some nebulous lump. I'm talking about specific people, here on this very forum, so there is quite a difference.

[slipnslider]

20 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Yes, but you are talking about non specific people, lumping "conservatives" into some nebulous lump. I'm talking about specific people, here on this very forum, so there is quite a difference.

Well if there are specific people presenting horseshit as fact, they probably learned it from their propaganda sources.

[PappyTron]

2 minutes ago, slipnslider said:

Well if there are specific people presenting horseshit as fact, they probably learned it from their propaganda sources.

Yeah, but people get banned for bringing it up.

[Dazey]

30 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Yeah, but people get banned for bringing it up.

Nah, you'll get nothing more than a few hail marys, a tissue and the priest would be reassigned.

[Fitha_whiskey]

So- supporting evolution- fossils by the millions/ geological record, DNA evidence, lab experiments on simple organisms, etc.

Refuting evolution- an ancient fable of everything in the world being created in a week, and philosophical bullshit about higher streams of consciousness that we fail to have (which I don't mind discussing after some fine weed or shrooms or something) so we can't understand the master plan. So we must just trust the book of fables, or burn in a firey hell.

As long as there are people who emphasize religion over true knowledge and science, there will always be war, hate and misery. 

 

[Ace Nova]

10 hours ago, slipnslider said:

The power of brainwashing.

Religion needed evolution to be false in order to maintain religious power and fortune.

 

That's not true. I went to Catholic high school and they taught evolution in science class. 

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That's not true. I went to Catholic high school and they taught evolution in science class. 

Yeah, I went to a Catholic high school as well and myself and fellow students were well versed in the "theory" of evolution.  In fact, even though the school was owned and operated by the Lasallian Brother, religion was often taught as a philosophy, less so as a dogmatic belief system.  The school required all freshmen to read the entire New Testament, but soon after I mostly recall learning about other religions and philosophies.  

As much as reject the concepts put forward by most religions these days, I've got no issue with those who hold dear to their religion provided that it remains a personal experience.  Once religious teachings begin to push out science because it runs counter to what's foretold in texts that were composed thousands of years old, that's when I take issue.  I see no problem if a person chooses to believe in creationism over evolution so long as they don't expect or force others to believe the same and public policy is unaffected by such beliefs.  

I also have no issue with schools teaching creationism as it relates to what certain religions believe, and not on the basis that creationism is actually what happened.  I think both sides need to cool it a bit about what it means for both religion and science being taught in schools.  It's fine to educate children about the ways of religion just so long as they're also made to understood that there's no basis for any of what most religions teach other than a person's faith.  And religious people need to step off any argument that evolution didn't happen and that the earth is only six thousand years old because the Bible, Tanakh, or Quran say so.    It is factually known that almost every geographic claim within the Bible is unequivocally wrong.  Perpetuating falsehoods because it offends ones belief system should never have any part in educating impressionable children.  

[SteveAJones]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

  It is factually known that almost every geographic claim within the Bible is unequivocally wrong.  

What??? The Bible is one of the most historically accurate texts concerning geography known to mankind. Did you mean to say something else?

---------------

Young Earth Evidence: Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision.

Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

Young Earth Evidence: Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.

Young Earth Evidence: Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at http://www.creationscience.com/). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

Young Earth Evidence: Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.

First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past. One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision. These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.

We use the theory of evolution to interpret the fossil record. We then turn around and use our interpretations of the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution. “And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” (Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52) “…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.” (R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1954, p. 168)

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.” (J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47)

The issue gets more complicated when we find discrepant fossils in the same rock layers! “Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoof prints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs. Hoof prints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horse-like hoof prints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.” (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 7th edition., 2001, p. 11)

“Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved. Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale” (Brown, ibid).

Moreover, some of the index fossils which geologists use to date bygone eras have been found still alive today. Consider, for example, the coelacanth, an index fossil which was thought to have gone extinct 70 million years ago. “…The coelacanth was a member of a very ancient class of fishes which was supposed to have disappeared some 70 million years ago. This great group of fishes, call crossopterygians, flourished during that decisive era in the history of the earth - when the fish, taking on legs and lungs, went forth to conquer the continents” (Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanths,” Scientific American, vol. 193, December 1955, p. 37). It turns out the coelacanth didn’t disappear “some 70 million years ago.” They’re still around today!

The first living coelacanth was caught in 1938 deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Since then, rewards have been offered for coelacanths, so hundreds have been caught and sold. Before 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70 million years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths - despite more than 70 million years of evolution. Before living coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, must have crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been taught that this fish was the ancestor to all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)

Professor J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, who privately studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs,” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. However, in 1987, a German team led by Hans Fricke filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. Were they crawling on all fours in a shallow sea? Did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. In fact, they lived 500-1,200 feet below sea level and spent much of their time doing headstands, apparently looking for food” (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, 7th edition, p. 29).

The point is that the geologic column may not be as reliable as many scientists and academics make it out to be. Everyone is urged to investigate this matter for themselves before accepting any conclusions derived from this dubious dating method.
------------

Edited December 9, 2016 by SteveAJones

[SteveAJones]

10 hours ago, slipnslider said:

And once again, you can't refute any of it, so you resort to insults.

Pot calls kettle black. You have refuted nothing, so you resort to a cornucopia of logical fallacies, to include ad hominem attacks, presumption, and appeals to authority.

[action]

3 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

What??? The Bible is one of the most historically accurate texts concerning geography known to mankind. Did you mean to say something else?

---------------

Young Earth Evidence: Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision.

Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

Young Earth Evidence: Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.

Young Earth Evidence: Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at http://www.creationscience.com/). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

Young Earth Evidence: Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.

First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past. One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision. These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.

We use the theory of evolution to interpret the fossil record. We then turn around and use our interpretations of the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution. “And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” (Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52) “…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.” (R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1954, p. 168)

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.” (J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47)

The issue gets more complicated when we find discrepant fossils in the same rock layers! “Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoof prints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs. Hoof prints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horse-like hoof prints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.” (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 7th edition., 2001, p. 11)

“Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved. Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale” (Brown, ibid).

Moreover, some of the index fossils which geologists use to date bygone eras have been found still alive today. Consider, for example, the coelacanth, an index fossil which was thought to have gone extinct 70 million years ago. “…The coelacanth was a member of a very ancient class of fishes which was supposed to have disappeared some 70 million years ago. This great group of fishes, call crossopterygians, flourished during that decisive era in the history of the earth - when the fish, taking on legs and lungs, went forth to conquer the continents” (Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanths,” Scientific American, vol. 193, December 1955, p. 37). It turns out the coelacanth didn’t disappear “some 70 million years ago.” They’re still around today!

The first living coelacanth was caught in 1938 deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Since then, rewards have been offered for coelacanths, so hundreds have been caught and sold. Before 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70 million years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths - despite more than 70 million years of evolution. Before living coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, must have crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been taught that this fish was the ancestor to all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)

Professor J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, who privately studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs,” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. However, in 1987, a German team led by Hans Fricke filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. Were they crawling on all fours in a shallow sea? Did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. In fact, they lived 500-1,200 feet below sea level and spent much of their time doing headstands, apparently looking for food” (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, 7th edition, p. 29).

The point is that the geologic column may not be as reliable as many scientists and academics make it out to be. Everyone is urged to investigate this matter for themselves before accepting any conclusions derived from this dubious dating method.
------------

all of this assumes that our knowledge of earth is complete.

it isn't

footprints of humans next to dinosaurs? that doesnt mean anything. geological processes can be responsible for mixing up rock layers and the fossils within them

every time we discover a new planet we see geological processes that don't make sense.... because we don't understand them. our intelligence is limited.

[SteveAJones]

7 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

LMFAO hearing this from a creationist! Hypocrisy.

I'm not a creationist, I'm just a regular Joe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs  

[action]

every time we make a new discovery in the universe, "we have to tune or revise our existing knowledge"

how did the mountains on pluto form? it doesnt have geological activity

how can there be ice on mercury? its the closest planet to the sun

what's that planet doing there, diverting from the elleptical plane. doesnt make sense

=> all points which didnt fit in our existing knowledge at some point in time. since then our knowledge has advanced and some of it has been explained.

but really, we are no better than monkeys watching a train pass by and wondering what the fuck that was

Edited December 9, 2016 by action

[Axl owns dexter]

Unreasonable conservatives flatly deny evolution

Unreasonable liberals believe human evolution only happened from the neck down

[Georgy Zhukov]

"Debate" lol.

[luciusfunk]

I keep reading the title as "The Evolution of Debate" and get excited until I click on the link. 

[slipnslider]

4 hours ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Unreasonable conservatives flatly deny evolution

Unreasonable liberals believe human evolution only happened from the neck down

I've heard plenty of conservatives deny evolution.

Never heard a single liberal say our brains didn't evolve too.  Where the hell did you get that assertion?

And doesn't it ever make you wonder about conservatism when that is the preferred political wing of people who deny evolution and manmade climate change?

If your party is filled with morons, maybe you should abandon it.

[PappyTron]

There are plenty of liberals with unevolved brains. Plenty of conservatives, too.

[AlexC]

Scientific theory and theory in the general sense of the word have two completely different meanings. So anyone who uses the tired "yeah but evolution is JUST a theory." Needs to go and sit in the corner and read a book first before they even enter this discussion.

And I mean a real book.

Not some biased, unsubstantiated Deepak Chopra shit.

[AlexC]

Evolution is the only theory backed by evidence that currently makes sense, and overwhelmingly so. You HAVE to believe it until something more solid comes along. It's real as we now know up to now. Until new evidence is discovered which denounces or obstructs this theory, anything else is wanton speculation.

[slipnslider]

52 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

There are plenty of liberals with unevolved brains. Plenty of conservatives, too.

Sure there are dumb liberals.  But you wont find dumb liberals claiming to know more about science than scientists or denying evolution exists.   Liberals listen to scientists.  Conservatives claim they are all part of an elitist conspiracy.

[PappyTron]

44 minutes ago, slipnslider said:

Sure there are dumb liberals.  But you wont find dumb liberals claiming to know more about science than scientists or denying evolution exists.   Liberals listen to scientists.  Conservatives claim they are all part of an elitist conspiracy.

You seem prone to making huge generalisations about entire groups of people.

[SteveAJones]

49 minutes ago, slipnslider said:

 Liberals listen to scientists. 

When it pertains to Earth worship, yes, but when it pertains to conception...not so much.

[SteveAJones]

2 hours ago, slipnslider said:

I've heard plenty of conservatives deny evolution.

Never heard a single liberal say our brains didn't evolve too.  Where the hell did you get that assertion?

And doesn't it ever make you wonder about conservatism when that is the preferred political wing of people who deny evolution and manmade climate change?

If your party is filled with morons, maybe you should abandon it.

slipnslider's inability to present an argument on ANY issue outside of a liberal/conservative political context is beyond tedious.

Seriously folks, doesn't this forum have an ignore button? 

Edited December 9, 2016 by SteveAJones