30
edits
Changes
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 00:14, December 10, 2009
, 00:14, December 10, 2009→Please comment or ask questions here:
:::You'll like our entry on [[evolution syndrome]] even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:::You'll like our entry on [[evolution syndrome]] even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::::Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::::Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)