Added: 8 months ago
From: thinkprogress5
Views: 77,550
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (246)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Yet that statement doesn't indicate more intelligence than the average person would show. That statement would simply be a regurgitation, a slogan, a sentence without the need for original thought. Anyone could utter it. For it to have been an intelligent statement, it would have to show that it is well reasoned. You can keep trying to lower the bar to imagine your statement intelligent, but like I said, we can't all have high standards.

  • Sounds like she has no idea on what she is talking about.

  • If you really want to be politically correct and still sound somewhat smart...say "I think evolution was one of God's most fascinating creations."

  • @EGarrett01 That is neither politically correct nor smart, merely an opinion, like many others, and one that you have posted without a warrant to back up the claim, and its generally the warrant that shows the intelligence of the opinion, not the claim.

  • @ArjunaGita

    No, it is precisely what I said it was. Your bald assertion offers no reason that it isn't.

  • @EGarrett01 Alright you're not a quick thinker. Let me explain. My original statement had nothing to do with whether intelligent design is true, rather, I was critiquing your claim that the statement that "evolution is one of god's best creations" would be a smart statement. For a statement to be smart, it has to show intelligent reasoning. So what that statement would be missing is an explanation of why intelligent design is correct, to show she doesnt just think that but understands WHY.

  • @EGarrett01 But then to follow up. You originally asserted intelligent design theory, I said you should at least back up your claim, you then say there's no reason your claim isn't backed up. You're not good at arguing, are you? To give an example: if you say there are WMD in Iraq, you would then have to say WHY you think there are WMD in Iraq, not say "you haven't said why there aren't WMD's in Iraq, so there must be." Intelligence lies in the REASONING behind the claim. Try it.

  • @ArjunaGita

    My claim was that it would be politically correct and sound somewhat smart. I didn't say it was logically correct, you didn't quite grasp the difference there.

    But if you want to compare intellects, by all means. I'll snap you like a twig.

  • @EGarrett01 You're very slowly headed the right direction but still not entirely there. You can't "sound smart" without showing some evidence of understanding the logic of your statements. So that statement is still neither politically correct (for which there really is no assertion anywhere so far), nor does it sound intelligent, because for it to sound intelligent there has to be an intelligent addition to that statement somewhere. Slowly, but surely, twiggy!

  • @ArjunaGita

    Politically correct is phrasing a statement in a way that offends the least number of people. It sounds intelligent because it gives some lip-service to a logical method of thinking that acknowledges scientific results.

    My initial statement remains correct. You have done nothing to challenge it.

  • @EGarrett01 I guess we then have different definitions of intelligence. By your definition lip service sounds intelligent. A questionable definition, by any standard, but I guess you simply have lower standards than me - which is your prerogative. The politically correct point is highly questionable as well, as many people get offended by an implicit defense of intelligent design theory, but I don't care about what is or isn't PC.

  • @ArjunaGita

    Intelligence is simply the brain's ability to use information. As an adjective it means that someone can do that more than the average person. (just like "tall" as an adjective means you stand higher than most people). If I say an answer would sound somewhat intelligent then that means it indicates greater intelligence than the average person would show.

    I think those definitions and standards are quite clear and correct.

  • @jshowa4 You must have horrible reading comprehension if you still are either missing or ignorant my point. Of course, I've spoken inarticulate about a subject. But I never claimed to be a geek and knowledgeable about it prior to opening my mouth and making a fool out of myself. The fact is, she claimed it to be INSIDE HER FIELD, and then sounded like a uneducated tart in describing what she said she knew so well. Listen to what I'm saying before you reply.

  • Oh, please. If you can't follow my logic, then don't bother replying. If she claims to be a "huge science geek", then she should be capable of explaining Evolution more comprehensively. If it were not for that claim, then no she would not be require to be articulate about this subject. In reality, though, it wasn't what she said but how she said it.

    Anyway, you're being a hypocrite. If you say I can't judged her by this video, then YOU can't judge any of the other girls by it. Nice try.

  • Haha! Teach "both sides"? Yeah, let's teach chemistry and "alchemy"! Lets teach astronomy and "astrology"! Let's teach medicine and "homeopathy" or "faith-healing"! Seriously, America has a BIG problem of ignorance/stupidity! What will they do about it, import all the scientists and professors and engineers and so on, if their own youth is brain-dead?:)

  • actually theories are not supposted to be believed, those aren't fairy tales, you understand them or you don't.

  • She's a science geek wannabe. "you know... you know," ugh. Do YOU know?

  • She said the right answer, but without any articulation at all. She's a self-proclaimed science geek, and yet her summary of Evolution was "...and, you know, the evolution of, you know, humans, you know, throughout" (pause) "you know, time." Are you serious? Yes, she supported evolution, but the answer seems coached. It looks like her mind went blank and she had no idea what she was talking about towards the end. She is not intelligent. She's as shallow as the rest of them.

  • 48/50 girls also agreed with her.

    B.t.w., she's Miss USA.

  • This is sad, it's synonymous to asking... "Should we teach the (pff) 'Theory' of GRAVITY in schools"?

  • "I believe in evolution..." haha what a sap.

  • @buktomsin indeed! we shouldn't "believe" in evolution, we should acknowledge the masses of evidence for it and accept it as current scientific thinking on the subject. Obviously this is what you meant... :)

  • @BLaZeDRas precisely.

  • "Miss USA Believes In Evolution"

    In the same sense she "believes" in gravity, and sunlight.

  • i'm a huge science geek, so i like to believe in like gravittty and like carbon dating, and that the world is more than 5000 years oooolld, yeahhh.

  • I didn't hear a word she said.

  • PLEASE SING THIS...........I PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN WHERE AT LEAST ONE GOOD LOOKING WOMAN ISN"T STUPID.

  • I'm feel proud and sad at the same time. Proud that we have such a smart and beautiful Miss USA, but at the same time, feeling a little sad that we even have to debate this at all. It shows that most American doesn't know the Theory of Evolution well enough. I'm not saying whether God exists or not, but even the Vatican said that the Theory of Evolution is not incompatible with God.

  • This is...very attractive

  • "I like to believe in...."

    WTF?

    yes I find it fun to believe in factual reality now and then....

  • European here: I didn't think it was possible. Well done that fraction of america. Your dead citizens (Einstein, Feynman,...) wouldn't be *that* ashamed.

  • In the comments: Religionfags mad

  • yes i believe in "you know, the evolution of humans, you know, throughout, you know, time." Versus other forms of evolution, of course

  • Comment removed

  • way of life.org / database /creation header.h t m l

    again without spaces. The fact about no one being able to offer absolute proof is in one of those articles, I I R C

  • @Chimel23 Thus, the Darwin Dissenters, represent about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. That's sure *alot* of people!

    You are right, not all biologist agree with the evolution. Just 99.99% of them...

  • note that the address is minus the spaces (Dissent from Darwin that is)

    Also, the not everyone agrees that the evidence is ' overwhelming'. There isn't really one shred of evidence to support it, because it really supports the Biblical view.

    all addresses without spaces

    true origins.org

    answers in genesis.org

    i c r . org

    creation . com

  • @Chimel23 Bringing up Dissent from Darwin? According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999. Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, and approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists. cont.

  • The OP is wrong in several areas. Not all biologists agree. Check out dissent from darwin.org. And questioning the evidence or believing it has a better interpretation is NOT stupidity. Many creation science believers are in fact highly intelligent and well educated. If presented from a scientific viewpoint, there is no reason alternate interpretations of the evidence can't be taught. And that's what creation science is, simply another interpretation of the same evidence Darwinists use.

  • smartest miss america we ever had.

    Keep it up.

  • @clrhilla Miss USA actually. Miss America contest is for scholarships. Miss USA is for straight cash, diamond tiara, and entry into Miss Universe. Trump runs Miss USA, so think about the sleaze/intellectual implications of that. But yeah, at least this one seems to be somewhat smarter than the other contestants.

  • @clrhilla She said the right answer, but without any articulation at all. She's a self-proclaimed science geek, and yet her summary of Evolution was "...and, you know, the evolution of, you know, humans, you know, throughout" (pause) "you know, time." Are you serious? Yes, she supported evolution, but the answer seems coached. It looks like her mind went blank and she had no idea what she was talking about towards the end. She is not intelligent. She's as shallow as the rest of them.

  • If anything she deserved to win based simply on her willingness to stand up and actually speak her mind on the issue.

  • @curtisreidbarnes123 So you are equally impressed by those who stood up and spoke their mind and said they did not believe in evolution? I think you think not. And I mean that.

  • @curtisreidbarnes123 She can speak her mind because she actually USES it.

  • @curtisreidbarnes123 Everyone stood up and spoke their mind. Just because what their mind had to say wasn't what your opinion shares doesn't mean their efforts are with less merit.

  • The lone ostensibly smart one. Most of them were totally willing to broadcast their unabashed ignorance of science on the now established consensus of evolution. Miss California gets my vote.

  • Right....God created the baboons so one day they will become humans...lol

    Now thats my big bang.

  • Boobs,,Legs.....Good!!!!  Uh,Oh...Guess I haven't evolved...

  • She also believes in man made global warming. Silly hoe! smh

  • @hawkermustang So she accepts science and reality? Awesome! REPRESENT MISS CALIFORNIA/USA!!!!!

  • @kubush Enjoy the brown outs in Calie. lol

  • @hawkermustang Hasn't really affected me but I will enjoy the California girls ;)

  • @hawkermustang Uh, we haven't had brown outs for years...

  • @Golgavar Your liberal run government is a joke. Isn't it the most in debt state in the nation?

  • @hawkermustang No it's not. And don't we have the biggest GNP of any state? Yes. The debt only works out to 2000 something per person(US federal debt is 55,000 per person).

    And, interesting fact: For every dollar that is taxed out of California by the federal govt, California only receives 0.78 back. Other states, like Mississippi, receive back 2.02. Looks like the Conservative states need more money to keep them afloat than the Liberal ones...

  • @Golgavar No federal bail out for Cali. Arkansas has a balanced budget. Cali has closed their parks and is underwater no than any other state.

  • @Golgavar Cali is 25 billion in debt and has the lowest credit rating of all 50 states. I will send you the link fool. lol

  • She's now officially too smart to run as a Republican.

  • Comment removed

  • @rp1dmc Yep, you're neither smug nor rude...

  • Comment removed

  • I'm an atheist but i find other atheists to be smug and rude. I'm not though.

  • @rp1dmc Everyone is smug and rude, try driving downtown at rush hour.

  • Comment removed

  • @rp1dmc That comment seems smug and rude to me.... Irony.

  • @kubush it isn't 

  • @rp1dmc Oh but it is.

  • @kubush nope

  • @rp1dmc Yup.

  • Finally, a Miss USA that isn't dumb and embarassing. So many girls that were arrogantly opposed to evolution competed, but this one is the fairest and smartest of them all!

  • I always hated the second fundamental theorem of calculus. If I have a personal supernatural alternative, can I still get credit?

    The currently theory of gravity needs 10 dimensions, sounds far fetched . Since it is only a theory, can I fly?

  • @ShaggyBilly Yes, you can fly. You can earn points for free drinks too!

  • @ShaggyBilly Actually you're thinking of M-theory (a branch of string theory which is a theory of everything aka TOE). The current leading theory of gravity is the higgs boson. This is what they're trying to detect with the LHC.

  • Comment removed

  • 1st = chicken

    2nd = egg

    photo finish

    results are subjective w/o proof or lack of anti-proof

  • I believe evolution should be taught as what it is, just another unproven theory.

    Whitewashing it without mentioning its limitless flaws is not science or common sense.

  • @octopibingo You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

  • @CopperGaut You explained the scientific side of evolution perfectly, i.e., if you dare question evolution you must be....and then attack the person who dares question your dogma. Better that than thoughtful discussion, which is impossible for most who believe in evolution as they haven't given it any deeper thought than what they learned in junior high.

  • @octopibingo I'm not against the questioning of anything, in fact, my own scientific and moral philosophy involves the questioning of almost everything. Evolution has proven itself to be true within reasonable doubt (does not mean that it is necessarily right). However, you called is another "unproven theory" to which I take issue with.

    I said that you don't know what you're talking about. This is true in regards to the workings of science. It has no dogma. It follows only what makes sense.

  • @octopibingo

    "unproven theory"

    this is a contradiction.

    scientific theory doesnt mean what you think it does.

  • Wow. I believe that evolution thing too.

    You gotta have faith.

    Never been observed, reproduced nor proved factual.

    Keep the faith.

  • @Clammypollack What do you mean "never been observed, reproduced nor proved factual?" Do you really think that all the species of dogs were created? Or is it at all possible that humans were able to domesticate wolves and make all the different species of dogs through artificial selection? And if that isn't enough for you, Google: "E. coli long-term evolution experiment." It is an experiment that has been running since 1988, and has documented mutations of the bacteria's DNA.

  • awesome. out of all the girls, she was definitely the only one that didn't walk the line. besides alabama of course, what an idiot that girl is.

  • I want to evolution her face

  • Im sorry, but if you believe in the big bang theory, I am not interested in anything else you have to say. I would definitely still do her though.

    The big bang theory is the biggest joke in "science". I think the scientists just wanted to see how far they could go with an absurd theory like the big bang. And naturally all the undereducated idiots just jump on the bandwagon and call you stupid if you dont believe it.

    What else in science just explodes and ends up with what we have today? lol

  • @HKBM45 yea wizard did it lol.... simple physics "big bang" might be a very over simplified analogy but it works as a place to start. p.s when stuff "explodes" this is cause by a reaction in affect turning matter in to energy (heat movement ext.), im sure you can expand on the rest of that your self. if you have a better current theory than that of the singularity then please share.

  • @tmarritt So we just go with the best sounding explanation and then teach it in schools? Im opposed to teaching kids things as fact. And then when they get out in the real world (or onto youtube) they tell everyone that doesnt believe what they learned in elementary school that they are an idiot, which really just shows their ignorance.

    It sounds to me like this is just a "Lets all come together as scientists and agree on this theory just so we can beat religion with it."

  • @HKBM45 the funny thing is that at least evolution has facts backing it up. Religion has NOTHING.

  • @neverlookback75 I never said it did have facts backing it up. Im not saying that religion is a logical choice for anyone. Science is the logical choice, because of your "facts" which are more clearly defined as evidence.

    But one guy looking at a fossil, and then looking at another fossil and saying "Well this became this... and then monkeys became humans!" Is not necessarily a "fact" for the evolution camp.

  • @HKBM45 genetics has basically proved evolution to be as true as any other scientific theory such as electromagnetism or gravity, and while the "big bang" or "singularity theory" is still very much unproven, we are getting closer every day thanks to the work of people much smarter than myself. its not a "lets go with this one" attitude its all about trying to beak down the current theory by testing it and if you cant then try again. "scientific method " look it up

  • @HKBM45 yeah, we have quite a few more fossils than just that. Plus, we have living examples of similar species that have evolved independently to adapt to their environments. So, it's not 2 bones, it's not 100 bones, it's thousands. Downplaying it just shows the weakness of your argument.

  • @HKBM45 ummmm, human conception?

  • @HKBM45 And you have something better?

  • @neverlookback75 I love the "Lets just go with this one." attitude.

    Wouldnt be so bad if so many of the people that believe it didnt talk down to the people that dont.

  • @HKBM45 Yeah, because it's the best explanation around. Far better than the fairy god that answers personal whims, just cuz. And if those who were religious took their religions as seriously as those who are atheist, then there would be no talking down. There could be an open & honest dialogue regarding facts & claims, but those who are religious rarely feel compelled to research anything about what they believe & only spout pulpit facts with nothing more than "my pastor said so" to back them up

  • (Isaiah 40:26) 26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

  • (Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

  • One of Taxifornia's finest examples of our public school system!

  • As long as she can make those up and down hand motions with her arms while keeping her palms closed, she doesn't need to know about evolution :)

  • The only reason she was in the competition, or anyone for that matter, is because they are hot. I would rather have Jane Goodall representing the US than any of these chicks.

  • Who in their right mind would WANT to believe in evolution? Even if you don't believe in God I would think everyone would hope like hell that there is one! After all what is the alternative? You die that's it game over. Who would want to believe in that?

  • @gltskline People who aren't huge fucking PUSSIES like you would believe in no God. You live, you die. You're not special. You're worm food after you die. Grow a pair of fucking BALLS and confront the truth rather than delude yourself dumbass.

  • @gltskline If you know that life is short and this is your only one, you'd make the most of it. You'd grab the chance to enjoy it, to love fully and appreciate what you've got. The fact that it's here for a short time is what gives life its value. That's what you should be doing; enjoying your life as it is now. None of us know what's coming afterwards, and chances are we'll never know.

  • @gltskline Everyone with a meaningfull life. Something you clearly don't have.

  • It's funny how creationists are relativists at heart, the very thing they profess to abhor according to their typical Christian background.

    "Who cares about keeping science within the realm of observable fact and tested theory? Science to me is about feelings! If science can't explain everything RIGHT NOW, then by golly it MUST include some all-knowing entity. But if you don't go to Church on Sunday, you'll surely burn in hell!"

    Hypocrisy at its finest.

  • How can these "creationism" hardliners denounce anything that's science related then look for evidence of life on other planets? IRONY in it's fullest form.

  • @marcot64 more like RETARDATION in its fullest form haha!

  • I love how get these girls that are obviously in this competition because they look hot and no other reason, then ask them these profiling questions to make sure they are PC enough to represent the organization. Then when they do something non-PC they take the crown away. Who would subject themselves to this stupidity?... oh yeah, dumb hot girls. It's still pretty sad

  • Evolution, "god", & aliens all had a hand in the creation of modern earth humans.

  • So she's a believer. Big deal...

  • I have more scientific facts which proves 'intelligent designer'. I don't think this is a good place to discuss.

  • @greatfile

    then publish, there's a nobel prize in it for you.

  • @TheEnsignUSN It's a fact in the sense that scientific theories that are known to be true would not exist and would not be considered to be true (to the fullest extent of our knowledge) if they weren't backed up by an overwhelming number of facts. (Nevertheless, I worded that last comment improperly given what I was criticizing her for...)

  • Their ignorance is breathtaking.

  • Atleast the woman has some reasoning but, the um's and arrh's need some work.

  • For those who believe we come from ape, you are deadly wrong. Who are the one spread false (darwin theory) in europe and to the rest of mankind?

    Erasmus Darwin - The Grandfather of Charles Darwin (Femous freemason and luciferian).

    Note: After this year all of you will know the existence of God (Creator of mankind).

  • @greatfile Darwin merely suggested a mechanism for how a species might become – in a word, fitter - he gave no indication of how it might throw up a new species. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), came up with the solution. Using pea plants, Mendel discovered that every seed contained two elemental factors – one dominant, other recessive - and these factors or genes when combined produced predictable patterns of inheritance. No scientific alternative to evolution has ever been proposed.

  • @roguemale57 we all know that mechanism does not produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur." That is why neo-Darwinism had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection.

  • @greatfile The mutation mechanism isn't "uniquely required" as shown explicitly through animal husbandry for thousands of years. Breading for favourable traits also occurs in nature as well as human controlled selective breading. Hence "The Jack Russell Terrier" ... not made by god, but a guy named "Jack Russell". The traits are not specifically a mutations.

  • @greatfile Like Copernicus & Galileo, Darwin withheld publishing his findings because, of religious authority at the time indeed, “On The Origin Of Species” only made it onto bookshelves 20 years after 1831 HMS Beagle voyage. During which, Darwin saw that as all organisms compete for resources; those that had some innate advantage would prosper and pass on that advantage to their offspring. The Galápagos Islands are a living example of how species change to suit their evironment eg.finches.

  • @greatfile

    I believe you need to work on your grammar before you can start telling other people what they should believe.

  • @CaptainRandom i am not good at grammer (i am a international student). I never tell other to believe but i want them to search and to think!!

  • @greatfile Any thinking person questions the idea of existence. Personally, I don't believe that I was magically wished into existence by an imaginary super being who lives in the sky, I know that genetic mutation and species adapting and changing with time are what made humans evolve. I'm not going to tell anyone else what they should think, but anyone who tries to refute scientific fact and replace it with religion is, in my opinion, an idiot. It's like saying you don't believe in the sun.

  • @CaptainRandom Nobody is refuting scientific fact. Is the science disproves the creator? Of course NOT..Still regardless, Science proves the existence of intelligent design. I have seen what you fear to see. Do you think law of physics not changeable? We are not alone in this planet my friend. There's a war on for your mind.

  • @greatfile You're disputing science. Stop it. You're speaking nonsense.

  • @greatfile Excuse me while I put on my tin foil hat lol.

  • @CaptainRandom What does grammar have to do with anything? Is that the best arguement you could come up with.

  • @greatfile ding a ling.

  • @greatfile

    Humans are apes.

  • I am sorry to say but there is no God.

  • @0zzy07 how do u know

  • @Frosti2008 ,actually it makes a great deal of sense. Evolution leaves no place for gods, including God. Ultimately such gods are left only to set the thing in motion (abiogenesis) but even that is steadily gaining more and more scientific evidence that no gods were involved in that.

  • Science is not consensus.

  • She's an idiot, nothing more... nothing less.

    I would like to believe? lol what a sheep.

  • @DarkFrostX5 , she said she believed it, and likes that she believes it.  That's not idiotic. It's human.

  • duh, there is no such thing as a god

  • She was brainwashed by the anti-god teachers like most public school kids. It's when you grow up you realize how wrong that "theory" really is, as you come to appreciate all that God has created for you. Those who don't are liberal fools.

  • @TheEnsignUSN Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, therefore it can (and in this case, does) = fact.

  • What if it turns out that God is the ultimate scientist?

  • @dlucas90 Im sure that will be religions final argument when its in its death throws. Right now religion is flopping like fish out of water gasping for air. THE END (of religion) IS NIGH!!!

  • @ReasonNLogic A belief in God has evolved for at least thirty thousand years, I doubt it will go away anytime soon, which is fine with me. As long as humans understand that there are limits to logic and reasom, there will always be a need for belief. Without bellief logic doesn't have a starting point. Even Descarte, the father of modern science, believed in the soul and God but he did so by reaching the limits of logic and reason.

  • @dlucas90 There is not a need for irrational belief. We believe some things without evidence (e.g. that there is a real world outside our mind) because it is a starting point that seems successful and useful.

    Also the belief in "God" is quite different from a belief in gods, and is more recent. It's not fine with me that it doesn't go away, because it is extremely dangerous.

    Descartes was great at some things, but not others (incl. gods). That is the nature of scientists.

  • @dlucas90 Religion has evolved out of man's ignorance to natural explanations. Descartes is known as father of modern philosophy, which isn't a science. And please enlighten me to these "limits" of reason and logic.

  • @Reason For a quick review of Descartes, I recommend a video called "three minute philosophy, rene descartes".

    The limits of logic is due to the fact that the premise of any argument is ulimately reliant on an assumption / belief. Descartes tried to prove his own existence using logic alone and discovered it is impossible. The closest he got was the argument "I think, therefore, I am. Unfortunately, this argument proves nothing since the conclusion is already assumed true in the premise.

  • @dlucas90 I believe the earth is Spherical. Is that an assumption? No, therefore beliefs can be based on fact. So an argument based on a belief, that is based on facts, is not a limit on logic.  A belief which is based on assumption isn't a limit on logic, it just illustrates the limits of knowledge of that particular believer. By the way i read up on the big D and it would seem to me that logic and reason were, in his view, the only certain methods of acquiring knowledge.

  • @dlucas90 "It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well."

    Rene Descartes

  • @singledad1234 ... Why are you always blabbering about 911 ...This is a video about evolution ... so what is your Point?

    And now that I know that your wife tried to kill your kids I feel a lot more sorry for them!

    But dude you think insulting me is making your words more useful?

    So all in all I think you'are pretty boring ... so good night a have to get up early to lern something about the real world!

  • What do you know Miss USA believes in junk science. What a surprise. NOT!!!

  • Why do we waste so much time on science's best guess as to what happened 5 million years ago.

    What we can prove and test in a lab matters the most. If someone says gravity is false or water is not 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen that's much bigger than not believing the millions of years ago tales.

    We can't prove evolution in the lab like we can scientific fact, so it remains a theory, albeit the one accepted by nearly all scientists.

    I believe in force = mass X acceleration.

  • @RuflessRecords Sorry but you missed the point ... we actually can prove evolution in the lab ... and evolution is a fact ... maybe you don't know what a scinetific theory means... And if someone says that the earth is not 4.5 billions years old it is the same as to say gravity is not f= y*m*M/r² ... and evolution is important for other scientific fields!

  • @Asreyl89 no it can't be proved in a lab like scientific fact, that's why it's still called the theory of evolution, despite near total acceptance. The theory in total is untouchable, all the parts that make it up are weak and based on conjecture.

    Evolution's importance to other fields is overstated by evolutionists. Science made many of the greatest break throughs before the theory was believed by most in the field. Pasteur and Newton seemed to do fine without it.

    I believe f = ma.

  • @RuflessRecords

    Except it can with bacterias, microbes, even small animals like fruit flies. Is it our fault that people keep ignoring that, thanks to bible billies. "Hurrdurr, DNA alteration in, DNA alteration out, no miscommunication".

  • @Pupsisissi micro, yes you're right microevolution can be proved in a lab