Quote:Since you forgot what you said
"To fundamentally label everyone who sees providence in a blade of grass as some wacked out flat earther is both insulting and WRONG."
Are you projecting or just experiencing a persecution complex?
I called no one a whacko flat earther. I think it was very clear that the point I was trying to make is that over time people have started to accept evidence that parts of their belief was wrong and those that have not, IMO are morons. It's up to you whether you fall into the former or the latter. What else would you call people incapable of accepting evidence? I'm open for another term that hurts your feelings less.
The evidence is there for the taking all over the place from a multitude of sources. If you can't create a reasonable extrapolation off of proven scientific data than that's on you.
you're right you did not use the words Moronic Flat earther. I was paraphrasing. You created two very distinct categories MORONS and those who are LESS MORONIC. That's pretty clear and not only is it insulting but its also disrespectful to those who disagree with you who as i said have been involved in the scientific and medical fields for decades.
as to the idea of how you fundamentally mislabeled just look below.
Quote:Ten years ago people who believe in creation would have turned red in the face in flat out refusal of that part you accept above. What's the point? That the creation theory has attempted to ignore and deny every part of evolution including the age of the earth. Over time, the less moronic believers have been forced to accept those parts which are absolutely provable.
And this was in response to Eric 85 saying that in his estimation species change over time but that they don't change into each other and that there's no evidence to suggest they do change into each other.
I don't know what you think or don't think about my powers of perception but i can tell the difference between pee and rain.
Throughout my lifetime i have never heard anyone say that creation was based on the idea that the mean average of a giraffes neck length had to remain constant from generation to generation for their to have been an intelligent creator. And for you to say that that's the default position of creationism is either extremely arrogant or extremely ignorant. The way that you said it was both insulting and wrong.
If you disagree with creationism that's fine, if you strongly disagree with people who espouse it that's your given right, but when you have to resort to demeaning groups of people you disagree with that demonstrates the weakness of your position.
That's why its no surprise that when we ask for examples of the evidence that you hold so dear we get the deflection "well its out there if you're too stupid to figure it out then that's your problem" again, i'm paraphrasing.
Now I'll go to translating.
"Well, i really think its true. Its a theory expressed by science so it has to be based on scientific evidence. I'm not really sure what the data says, i'm not really sure about the completeness of the fossil record, i don't really want to start talking about punctuated equilibrium, beneficial mutation rates, we might have to start talking about geotaxis in fruit flies and how that correlates to food supplies. He might ask me about proposed ideas of fusion events in the human genome and i don't know exactly how that works or would work. He keeps talking about this abiogenesis thing and i never really heard of that before and maybe if i ignore it he'll just go away. Before the big bang... what does he mean before the big bang...
Let's just make a sarcastic snarky remark and hope that anchorman will back me up."
But hey, that's just an assumption. Then again, all i'm left with is assumptions when repeated requests for you to state the evidence supporting your case are met with "the subject is closed you're just too stupid to know it"