Theory of evolution.... is failing.. Page 2

Started by Revendusman March 25th, 2008 11:36 PM
  • 2740 views
  • 73 replies
Age 33
Seen June 2nd, 2014
Posted January 23rd, 2012
2,010 posts
19.7 Years
Science is all stupid IMO.

Barely anything is real its all "theories" and all of them have a big thing missing so it all makes no sense.
You're twelve. You're basing your opinion on vague conjecture with no specific examples at all. No scientists are going to throw down their microscopes and give up because of THAT.
Age 31
It changes sometimes..
Seen April 19th, 2008
Posted April 19th, 2008
89 posts
15.2 Years
You're twelve. You're basing your opinion on vague conjecture with no specific examples at all. No scientists are going to throw down their microscopes and give up because of THAT.
Pwnage.

I agree with Allstories..I mean we wouldn't even have computers and TVs and all these other technologies we have today if it werent for science. Also, we wouldn't have cures for diseases and things like that and we'd still be living like our ancestors in caves. Everything begins with an idea, which is why people have made such advances in science and technology.
Age 35
Wandering the earth in search of myself.
Seen November 15th, 2016
Posted November 15th, 2016
338 posts
18.2 Years
I'm 99% glad somebody brought this up. The other 1% is because this is one of the 'Definite Controversy' topics. Well, If you want a massive amount of information to the dis-proof of evolution, go here:

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Downloads.htm

WARNING: Just so you know, it's not a neutral view of the topic. The writers of these books are very creationist, so just to let you know. The difference? They use the same scientific processes to disprove evolution that evolutionists use to, er, prove it.
Anyway, the entire contents of all 3 books, and a lot more can be found on this site. Think it was a few thousand pages worth.
Seen August 31st, 2012
Posted October 23rd, 2008
671 posts
17.5 Years
From a strictly scientific point of view, the Theory of Human Evolution is just that-- a theory. It has not been proven, but it's highly likely that it actually occurred. :B The theory has been tested, there's evidence to back it up, blah blah blah.

:/ Though, using the theory of evolution as an argument against Christianity is amateur at best. That said, I wouldn't exactly shove the Book of Genesis into a scientist's face and say "EAT THAT, DARWIN."

I frankly couldn't care less what I evolved from, as long as I'm able to walk/talk/communicate and express myself in the present time. :B Being Catholic myself, I'm inclined to think that all scientific phenomena, including evolution, are thanks to the Big Guy. I'd prefer not to be evolved from a Chimp, but whatever happened, happened.

As for "evidence against Evolution", sure, I bet there are other non-Creationist theories that debunk it in a very vague sense. Heck, I've heard some opposing scientific theories, but even those would have to be proven facts to hold any water.
signature under construction
Seen January 15th, 2011
Posted August 22nd, 2009
720 posts
16.8 Years
WARNING: Just so you know, it's not a neutral view of the topic. The writers of these books are very creationist, so just to let you know. The difference? They use the same scientific processes to disprove evolution that evolutionists use to, er, prove it.
Anyway, the entire contents of all 3 books, and a lot more can be found on this site. Think it was a few thousand pages worth.
I looked at 2 of the pdf (like hell I'm actually going to read all of them)... And seriously I don't think you could choose a less biased, more ridiculous site to cite information from. From ridiculous assumptions, to statement which actually had no science in them (such as carbon dating being unreliable) and other irrelevant facts.
In the "Creation speaks for itself" as well as using facts from stories, many of the scientific usage was massively irrelevant- simply used to boost credibility of the content. And then there's the reliability in the Bible...whoa.. don't get me started on that.
Besides it hardly 'disproved evolution', sure there were probably a couple of average points in that 1500+ page of drivel that could stump an evolutionist, but if you were to consider the evidence that actually supports evolution.. It really doesn't do much in disproving the concept.

I don't mind when people are skeptical about evolution or simply admit to 'not knowing how existance occured' ... but using creationism as an oppositional excuse is just hypocritical. Also I found the term "Science vs. Evolution" massively ironic.


If you want a non-biased source how about an encyclopedia? It has less BS in, is a neutral source and refrains from brainwashing.
Ad hominem is for n00bs. Make good points.

=/
Age 34
Neo America
Seen February 28th, 2009
Posted February 28th, 2009
357 posts
15.2 Years
Hell, creationism is just one of the last assumptions that we have that are not based on any facts other than blind faith in an unseen creator. That's not to say evolution could've have been created by a divine being... but it makes sense from a scientific standpoint that we evolved into the state that we are now...

But at times I still wonder about the ancient Babylonian texts that say visitors from another galaxy came and harvested our planet of an important element necessary to their survival. They created humans by mixing their DNA with the cro-magnons of the time, thus there's a gap between the last state of our evolution and our current one. Haha, but that's a little over the top.

Help me finish my pokedex legitly:
http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=3385323#post3385323


Just waiting for Arcues

22sa

ロミオとシンデレ �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

Male
Canada
Seen January 11th, 2023
Posted November 9th, 2022
8,421 posts
19.7 Years
Theory of Evolution is a myth, a story, not the history of man.

A man is a man and was never more or less. Some ape or insect of whatever Darwin theorized we came from could not have been man--they contradict the nature, the essence a human being. All different animals exist and survive in different ways. A panda isn't a dog. A fish isn't a hawk. A man can't be anything but a man. The theory of evolution is just a fantasy.

. きみさえ~ いれば
Seen January 15th, 2011
Posted August 22nd, 2009
720 posts
16.8 Years
Theory of Evolution is a myth, a story, not the history of man.

A man is a man and was never more or less. Some ape or insect of whatever Darwin theorized we came from could not have been man--they contradict the nature, the essence a human being. All different animals exist and survive in different ways. A panda isn't a dog. A fish isn't a hawk. A man can't be anything but a man. The theory of evolution is just a fantasy.
omg lawl. So you're saying that every single animal on the planet has existed on it for the past 4.5billion years? It's a shocker we don't find fossils of rabbits next to fossils of dinosaurs... >_>

That's a really good argument too... "All different animals exist and survive" it's called adaptation. And I'm not even sure what you're on about with "the contradicting essence" garble.

Yeah if you made a proper argument, you might be taken more seriously.
Ad hominem is for n00bs. Make good points.

=/

sims796

We're A-Comin', Princess!

Age 33
Brooklyn, NY (Yeah, I'm a New Yorker, like Luigi)
Seen January 14th, 2014
Posted November 30th, 2012
5,861 posts
16 Years
From a strictly scientific point of view, the Theory of Human Evolution is just that-- a theory. It has not been proven, but it's highly likely that it actually occurred. :B The theory has been tested, there's evidence to back it up, blah blah blah.

:/ Though, using the theory of evolution as an argument against Christianity is amateur at best. That said, I wouldn't exactly shove the Book of Genesis into a scientist's face and say "EAT THAT, DARWIN."

I frankly couldn't care less what I evolved from, as long as I'm able to walk/talk/communicate and express myself in the present time. :B Being Catholic myself, I'm inclined to think that all scientific phenomena, including evolution, are thanks to the Big Guy. I'd prefer not to be evolved from a Chimp, but whatever happened, happened.


As for "evidence against Evolution", sure, I bet there are other non-Creationist theories that debunk it in a very vague sense. Heck, I've heard some opposing scientific theories, but even those would have to be proven facts to hold any water.
I really gotta go with this, particulary the bolded part. Me being a (chosen) Christian, I do believe in Creationism. To a point. I mean, I love to see a talking snake, but my dreams never come true. As for Evolution, I'm gonna need more *conclusive* proof to sway me. I really don't care how smart, educated, critically aclaimed these scientist are, based on what the "community" says. Personally, I am sick of how things are "accepted" as fact, without their being 100% proof. What I never understood, and would love to find out, is how only a group of people evolved from monkeys, and how their are still monkeys today. This sounds confusing, but I'm having difficulty explaining. I am also somewhat annoyed at the sheer number of atheist on this site, meaning it's hard to get something other than a one-sided arguement on the matter. Oh well.

Besides, I've seen South Park. I won't get overrun by beavers :laugh:
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 1 Day Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
I love this kind of threads, specially before the flamewars start. Debates like this are very interesting.

As for Evolution, I'm gonna need more *conclusive* proof to sway me. I really don't care how smart, educated, critically aclaimed these scientist are, based on what the "community" says. Personally, I am sick of how things are "accepted" as fact, without their being 100% proof.
Sadly, this point can be perfectly used against creationism. I mean, I need some other proof than a 2000 years old book to believe in that, specially when evolution is so backuped with evidence. And in reality, can you prove with a 100% of security, that God created all the living beings several thousands of years ago?

What I never understood, and would love to find out, is how only a group of people evolved from monkeys, and how their are still monkeys today. This sounds confusing, but I'm having difficulty explaining.
Actually that's wrong, it's not that some monkeys evolved and others didn't. It's more of a Vileplume-Bellossom thing, to compare it to pokémon. Originally both followed the same evolution line, but they reached a point (Gloom) where the species split in two: a group of them went out of the forests, and thus got adapted to the life in the open, getting more inteligence to make up for their lack of strenght; while the others kept living there and thus got even more adapted to the life in trees, becoming the current monkeys.

I am also somewhat annoyed at the sheer number of atheist on this site, meaning it's hard to get something other than a one-sided arguement on the matter. Oh well.
Well, I'm an atheist myself, but that doesn't have anything to do, I mean, if there was enough proof supporting it, more people than catholics would support it. Or is Evolution only supported by atheists?

sims796

We're A-Comin', Princess!

Age 33
Brooklyn, NY (Yeah, I'm a New Yorker, like Luigi)
Seen January 14th, 2014
Posted November 30th, 2012
5,861 posts
16 Years
I love this kind of threads, specially before the flamewars start. Debates like this are very interesting.
Ditto.


Sadly, this point can be perfectly used against creationism. I mean, I need some other proof than a 2000 years old book to believe in that, specially when evolution is so backuped with evidence. And in reality, can you prove with a 100% of security, that God created all the living beings several thousands of years ago?
Understood. And you've further proved the point that nothing is exact in the least. I wasn't using it against evolution, but I was giving (one) of my reasons to not up & jump on that therory.


Actually that's wrong, it's not that some monkeys evolved and others didn't. It's more of a Vileplume-Bellossom thing, to compare it to pokémon. Originally both followed the same evolution line, but they reached a point (Gloom) where the species split in two: a group of them went out of the forests, and thus got adapted to the life in the open, getting more inteligence to make up for their lack of strenght; while the others kept living there and thus got even more adapted to the life in trees, becoming the current monkeys.
I wasn't stating a fact. I was pure confused on the matter. This cleared it up. Just so happens that Vileplume & Gloom are my favorites. (although Eevee would have been a better example.


Well, I'm an atheist myself, but that doesn't have anything to do, I mean, if there was enough proof supporting it, more people than catholics would support it. Or is Evolution only supported by atheists?Just about. I mean, there aren't much views outside evolution on this site, which leads to one sided arguements, and I don't learn much from those.

Whadda mean my message was too short? I can't quote anymore? Bah. Dang PC rules...

Comments in bold.
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.

22sa

ロミオとシンデレ �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

Male
Canada
Seen January 11th, 2023
Posted November 9th, 2022
8,421 posts
19.7 Years
omg lawl. So you're saying that every single animal on the planet has existed on it for the past 4.5billion years? It's a shocker we don't find fossils of rabbits next to fossils of dinosaurs... >_>

That's a really good argument too... "All different animals exist and survive" it's called adaptation. And I'm not even sure what you're on about with "the contradicting essence" garble.

Yeah if you made a proper argument, you might be taken more seriously.
You don't know what I mean by contradicting the nature of man? Man thinks, uses language, and have completely different brain activities then apes (was that what Drawin said we came from? I'm not even clear about it =D). An ape could never have been labelled as a man. Saying that we evolved from Apes means that they are related to us, are out ancestors, but they could not have been because they contradict what makes us what we are.

I really have no clue when and how certain animals came into existence, but saying a dog evolved from a wolf is infinitely more believable then man evolving from an ape. At least they don't have that many differences, just that wolf is much more predatory. I believe the first animals were all creations of God.

This is not to say I deny evolution in whole though, because it has some right ideas [survival of the fittest].

. きみさえ~ いれば
Seen January 15th, 2011
Posted August 22nd, 2009
720 posts
16.8 Years
Actually that's wrong, it's not that some monkeys evolved and others didn't. It's more of a Vileplume-Bellossom thing, to compare it to pokémon.
lol. That's really weird- I was just about to post a Gloom analogy. >_>

But thats essentially correct. The similarity in genes and physical structures show that monkeys and human had a common ancestor. Supposedly the last ancestor was around 6million years ago. Humans aren't monkeys that evolved more and got more l33t in the process.

The 'man evolving from monkey' concept is a falsheood, made up by opposition used to decredit early darwinism. Although not a single evolutionist/biologist actually believes this, some creationists still use it as a point (or an ignorant insult).

You don't have to be atheist to support evolution. With increasing understanding, media and technology, many religious people accept evolution as well. Claiming it to be Gods work, but oppositely refuting creationism - an example of this would be the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who described Biblical creationism as 'a category mistake'.
Some Christians say that the 6days in the Bible, were super long days. Allowing for evolution to occur. Although plants being made a 'long day' prior to the sun and birds & fishes occuring simultaneously, somewhat shed skepticism on this theory.
And there are many religions that don't have their own creation stories, or a deity to drive them. So fall on evolution for answers.
Ad hominem is for n00bs. Make good points.

=/

sims796

We're A-Comin', Princess!

Age 33
Brooklyn, NY (Yeah, I'm a New Yorker, like Luigi)
Seen January 14th, 2014
Posted November 30th, 2012
5,861 posts
16 Years
lol. That's really weird- I was just about to post a Gloom analogy. >_>

But thats essentially correct. The similarity in genes and physical structures show that monkeys and human had a common ancestor. Supposedly the last ancestor was around 6million years ago. Humans aren't monkeys that evolved more and got more l33t in the process.

The 'man evolving from monkey' concept is a falsheood, made up by opposition used to decredit early darwinism. Although not a single evolutionist/biologist actually believes this, some creationists still use it as a point (or an ignorant insult).

You don't have to be atheist to support evolution. With increasing understanding, media and technology, many religious people accept evolution as well. Claiming it to be Gods work, but oppositely refuting creationism - an example of this would be the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who described Biblical creationism as 'a category mistake'.
Some Christians say that the 6days in the Bible, were super long days. Allowing for evolution to occur. Although plants being made a 'long day' prior to the sun and birds & fishes occuring simultaneously, somewhat shed skepticism on this theory.
And there are many religions that don't have their own creation stories, or a deity to drive them. So fall on evolution for answers.
Thats good to know. It just seems that, well, many people who goes for Creationism gets that common stereotype that they are all God fearing, loudmouth, judgmental idiots, who masks the fact that they can't make a real argument by being loud. That upsets me, and is why I take these threads personally. I have an open ear to evolution, as it makes much more sense than the world being made in 6 days. I'd love to clap my hands and say "let there be light", but unfortunately, I don't own a Clapper :D

In the same light, many evolutionist also get the rap of being judgemental (you're an idiot if you believe in creationism) arua, thinking that their ways are the ultimate, and only way of thinking. Which ultimately leads to backwards thinkng.

EDIT:Just throwing it out there, Vileplume is the best.
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.
For many years, politicians and educrats within the government "public" school system have been pitching the idea that evolution is the only proven scientific method-and that any other concepts, including intelligent design/creationism are "bogus" and "religionist" and "don't belong in the classroom".
I have yet to find ANY proof that evolution is 100% solidly proven fact other than "research" sourced from politically-favorable special interests, liberal academia, media, and other government-sponsored sources.

Spoiler:
Many of these "sources" are also the same interests that preach over and over that global warming is "man-made and catastrophic" and that we "need carbon taxes" now "or else" we're "doomed for eternity."

And don't get me started on how we (American children) "need more science and math" to "compete in the global economy". What other countries are teaching and scoring in their schools is none of our business-just like it's none of our business to be meddling around the Middle East for "regime change" missions.
Seen October 17th, 2008
Posted July 18th, 2008
100 posts
15.2 Years
I take it this somebody is much more religious than scientific, which would explain his/her statement. Unless there is another scientific theory that has risen to oppose evolution lately, that's the only reason I can come up with.
its not so much as failing but the gap that where already there are becoming more noticable

Zet

Age 33
Male
Brisbane, Australia
Seen September 29th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2020
7,687 posts
15.7 Years
Ok in the spoiler box, some people may find this offensive(religious people)

Spoiler:
the bible never said God created dinosaurs. Then what the hell created the dinosaurs? the moon? probably not but since no mention about the awesome dinosaurs in the bible, evolution wins =D


Edit for the sake of it: I am a catholic, I respect any opinion and can make fun of religion because there is no harm being done

Captain Arcane

spoon full o'peanut butter

Age 31
Male
United States
Seen June 20th, 2022
Posted September 25th, 2009
788 posts
16.9 Years
Well, if I were you in that situation I probably may have ripped that mans head off!? (yelling wise)

In my opinion, (and many, many, many, many.........others), there is to much evidence to say "nope, there is no such thing". The man that probably said that stuff to you was most likely extremely religious, being either Christian, Catholic, or Mormon.

Plus, to make Darwin ever more truer, an event is taking place right know!? All across southern California, all rattle snakes are loosing their "rattle". When they attack, their rattles do not rattle any more! You could probably go look it up on something like google, or whatever, but in my opinion, this is a big SMACK in the face to all those "super" religious people out there.

Edit:
Oh, and Aniki, that stuff in your spoiler was great! XD

sims796

We're A-Comin', Princess!

Age 33
Brooklyn, NY (Yeah, I'm a New Yorker, like Luigi)
Seen January 14th, 2014
Posted November 30th, 2012
5,861 posts
16 Years
Well, if I were you in that situation I probably may have ripped that mans head off!? (yelling wise)

In my opinion, (and many, many, many, many.........others), there is to much evidence to say "nope, there is no such thing". The man that probably said that stuff to you was most likely extremely religious, being either Christian, Catholic, or Mormon.

Plus, to make Darwin ever more truer, an event is taking place right know!? All across southern California, all rattle snakes are loosing their "rattle". When they attack, their rattles do not rattle any more! You could probably go look it up on something like google, or whatever, but in my opinion, this is a big SMACK in the face to all those "super" religious people out there.
But not enough to exclusively say Evolution is the only way to go. That rattlesnake thing doesn't furter prove what he said, at least based on the limited info you gave. It could be a number of reasons why those snakes don't rattle. And it doesn't disprove Creationism any less. Or more. Whichever is in proper grammer.
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.

Captain Arcane

spoon full o'peanut butter

Age 31
Male
United States
Seen June 20th, 2022
Posted September 25th, 2009
788 posts
16.9 Years
Yeah, I know I lack on details, but, I'm not in the mood to right a book right now! XD

Yes, correctly, it does not 100% mean that evolution, is real, but either way or not, it sure helps it a hell of a lot.

But, y'know, now that I looked over my post from a spectator's view, I just realized that I left out a specific part. -- Rattle snakes no longer rattle when they feel they're in danger, or when they're about to attack. They've completely stopped. (that was the point I miss completely)
Seen August 30th, 2021
Posted July 9th, 2009
5,902 posts
19.7 Years
Ok in the spoiler box, some people may find this offensive(religious people)

Spoiler:
the bible never said God created dinosaurs. Then what the hell created the dinosaurs? the moon? probably not but since no mention about the awesome dinosaurs in the bible, evolution wins =D


Edit for the sake of it: I am a catholic, I respect any opinion and can make fun of religion because there is no harm being done
Actually, dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The only difference is that ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin" are used rather than what we call them now. It's in the very old book of Job (verses 40:15-19), which was probably written about 2,000 years before Jesus was even born.

Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…

Some people could argue that the "behemoth" mentioned was something like an elephant or a rhinoceros, but... er, those animals certainly don't have swaying tails that could be compared to the trunks of cedar trees. ^^; I'm thinking it's something along the lines of a Diplodocus or Apatosaurus, who were both gigantic dinosaurs but fed on foliage and the like. Who knows? That's just my opinion. I wasn't there, so I can't argue that it's a "fact" or anything.

But I still thought I'd add that in. I'd prefer to stay out of the other stuff since I don't exactly have the talent of debating well with others. XD; I'll leave that to the guys.
Seen January 15th, 2011
Posted August 22nd, 2009
720 posts
16.8 Years
But, y'know, now that I looked over my post from a spectator's view, I just realized that I left out a specific part. -- Rattle snakes no longer rattle when they feel they're in danger, or when they're about to attack. They've completely stopped. (that was the point I miss completely)
I think he's trying to get at natural selection causing adaptations.

Basically when some members of a specie experiences a mutation that makes them better off (e.g say a elephant had camoflage), than others in it's species (standard greys). So they are more likely to survive (e.g don't get eaten), so they mate and pass on the gene (creating camo kids). This increases the number of advantageous genes present in the generation and reduces the less useful ones.

There's only a tiny amount concerning dinosaurs in the bible.. actually it's not even mentioned. The Behemoth/Leviathan are really quite vague, nor do they rule out the possibility of it being a mythical creature (Cherub anyone?).
Belief that all except 2 from each species got killed in the flood is convenient... though how they all managed to fit on the ark beats me.. and what stopped them from eating each other. Good job Noah.

And just for the record.. concerning the Book of Job, hardly any of the Bible exists as it's original text. Most of which appears to be written up to centuries after its supposed occurence.
Ad hominem is for n00bs. Make good points.

=/

sims796

We're A-Comin', Princess!

Age 33
Brooklyn, NY (Yeah, I'm a New Yorker, like Luigi)
Seen January 14th, 2014
Posted November 30th, 2012
5,861 posts
16 Years
Hey, scientist aren't absolute on how the dinos died. Who's to say it wasn't a giant flood? Hohoho.

Seriously, I wouldn't say the theory of evolution is failing, but it certainly can't be considered the only possibility.
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.
Age 32
Universe A
Seen May 12th, 2012
Posted June 14th, 2011
1,165 posts
19.1 Years
If I didn't put my two cents in, I could never forgive myself.

The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, is a groundbreaking work of science.

When you look at science, you need to look at it with a scientific perspective. I observe, I record, make a hypothesis, test it, and if it holds true, I have a theory.

That's how making a theory works.

Just because something is a theory does not make it false.

The theory of general relativity is just that, a theory. Is it false? We can see it happen in our very own weapons of war, atomic bombs.

Some people will refuse to see things as they are. We have the fossils, we have the theory, it makes logical sense, it has been validated by transitional fossils, etc., etc., etc. It really scares me that people can have so much information at their disposal but choose to ignore it to fit their preconceived notions.

An age of distrust of science and reason happened once already. Historians call it The Dark Ages.

Sadly, it looks like it's repeating itself.

On a final note...this image kind of fits.
"The surface of the earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. ... Recently, we've managed to wade a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting."