2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 937:
Line 937: + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 20:28, February 1, 2017
, 20:28, February 1, 2017→A few weak arguments to address: new section
::But my guess is that the prospects of creationism is understated by academics as they have not taken into account sound scholarship about [[desecularization]] such as the research done by [[Eric Kaufmann]]. In addition, they are not privy to the plans of the leading creationist organizations and moderately successful creationist organizations nor have they taken the time to interview their leaders. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (EDT)
::But my guess is that the prospects of creationism is understated by academics as they have not taken into account sound scholarship about [[desecularization]] such as the research done by [[Eric Kaufmann]]. In addition, they are not privy to the plans of the leading creationist organizations and moderately successful creationist organizations nor have they taken the time to interview their leaders. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (EDT)
== A few weak arguments to address ==
Hey, I found a few arguments that I believe are too weak to combat against the liberal propaganda. The first was the argument from beauty. Clearly, evolution talks more about practicality and function rather than what is appealing to the eye. As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and I believe that Schally would agree with that. The next one is #12 in Logical examples. By definition, evolution is merely about changes to an organism, and not whether it benefits an organism. Yes, "survival of the fittest" applies, but many animals "evolved", and many practice infanticide. One more issue is #4 in Uncategorized. The left-wing scientists can disprove your argument by saying Africans and whites were "reproductively isolated" and yet interracial marriages produce viable children. And by definition, a species is when 2 organisms can produce young that can also produce young, so mules are off the cards.
I am a creationist and I am tired how the liberal bastards are ruining the truth, but I want you to use airtight arguments or else liberals can freely resort to the "you're so stupid" card.