Really, that has just as much reason to be taken seriously as anything from a mainstream theology with a reasonable following. Besides, Douglass Adams is easier to read than the Bible.
Guess I can't argue there.
It's: he who feels snotty, let him blow his nose... It appears to be his sig, I just read it wrong the first time. Back on topic now.
I believe in evolutionism, simply because of the ability to learn and adapt. The human race alone has changed so much since its beginning, and technology has evolved as a result of our own mental adaptations. Extinction exists, so therefore, evolution must as well. If old species die, new ones must take their place eventually.
Thanks, MageGrayWolf. And I intend to make it and -ism, fyi. Shakespeare added countless words to the English language to get his point across, and I reserve the right to follow his example.
Thanks, MageGrayWolf. And I intend to make it and -ism, fyi. Shakespeare added countless words to the English language to get his point across, and I reserve the right to follow his example.
Creationist attempted to ad the ism to the end in an attempt to lower science to the field of religion... I think mage already went over that.
Creationist attempted to ad the ism to the end in an attempt to lower science to the field of religion... I think mage already went over that.
Why does it have to lower it? The -ism part simply states that the belief in evolution is in fact a belief. It's a belief, and more. It's belief backed up by mathematical evidence and careful observation. Numbers don't lie, people do.
Why does it have to lower it? The -ism part simply states that the belief in evolution is in fact a belief. It's a belief, and more. It's belief backed up by mathematical evidence and careful observation. Numbers don't lie, people do.
The ism is to state that it is merely a belief. Creationist that coined the term wished to make evolution and creationism on the same plate, trying to make them seem even.
The ism is to state that it is merely a belief. Creationist that coined the term wished to make evolution and creationism on the same plate, trying to make them seem even.
Just because two ideas are on the same plate doesn't make them equal. Just because a rack of lamb sits beside a more humble pile of peas, does that make the peas the lamb's equal? No, it is the perception of the eater that makes one greater. By putting them on the same plate, though, it encourages people to think that the two ideas are indeed inequal, hence all this debate over it. Both are credible, but one will always have more popular support. By grouping them more similarly, it forces those supporters to recognise that their 'enemies', so to speak, are in it for the long haul to prove their point.
Why does it have to lower it? The -ism part simply states that the belief in evolution is in fact a belief. It's a belief, and more. It's belief backed up by mathematical evidence and careful observation. Numbers don't lie, people do.
That's the problem it's not a belief. Scientific theory is based on evidence. Weather someone believes it or not doesn't change the evidence.
Also I find ti interesting that the -ism is often added as if making it a belief some how lessens it. If so what does that say of what they do believe in?
Just because two ideas are on the same plate doesn't make them equal. Just because a rack of lamb sits beside a more humble pile of peas, does that make the peas the lamb's equal? No, it is the perception of the eater that makes one greater. By putting them on the same plate, though, it encourages people to think that the two ideas are indeed inequal, hence all this debate over it. Both are credible, but one will always have more popular support. By grouping them more similarly, it forces those supporters to recognise that their 'enemies', so to speak, are in it for the long haul to prove their point.
It is a hyperbole. I will give a different one, if you prefer...
Lets say that evolution is sitting on a podium, as it has evidence and is the ruling theory. Creationists try to take it off the podium and bring it to the floor, making it seem equal not better.
Lets say that evolution is sitting on a podium, as it has evidence and is the ruling theory. Creationists try to take it off the podium and bring it to the floor, making it seem equal not better.
That's what any opposition to any opposing belief attempts. I simply cannot understand how putting the two ideas in the same ballpark to determine one winner makes one seem weaker by comparison, or more equal to its opposition.
