...With continuing scientific research, the theory of evolution and its presuppositions have been thoroughly refuted. Take for example the arguments for a recent creation, which show that the Earth and universe could not possibly have evolved over millions of years. However, Evolutionism and the "scientific" theory of evolution continue to be popular in culture.
30 comments
Evidence that evolution has been refuted? Hell please provide evidence that all biology, geology, astronomy, et al are wrong and the universe is only 6000 yrs old.
Gotta love that Conservatardia!
I guess they figured, if Uncyclopedia can do a spoof on Wiki, they can too.
No Oscar Wilde quotes, though...I miss that.
I don't know - I've read all the peer-reviewed Creationist papers* and I haven't seen any refuting of evolution.
*zero papers makes for a very short read ...
The only "refuting" I've seen has been like the eight year old "refuting" that he broke the lamp playing football in the house: "maybe a big truck went by and shook it off the table"; "maybe there was an earthquake"; "maybe aliens zapped it through the window with their death ray". You don't "refute" science by inventing silly "what-ifs" out of thin air with no evidence (e.g., the speed of light has changed) and then sitting back and saying "prove me wrong".
"...With continuing scientific research, the 'theory' of creation and its presuppositions have been thoroughly refuted. Take for example the arguments for a recent creation, which show that the Earth and universe could not possibly have evolved over millions of years. However, Intelligent Design and the 'scientific' theory of creationism continue to be popular in Alabama."
Fixed.
-pb
Nostromo's right. As annoyingly rulebound as Wikipedia has become (and believe me, some munchkin always has a workaround to "Ignore All Rules" -- it's very frustrating), at least Wikipedia as a whole makes an effort to be fairly rigorous. No, it's not a primary source by any means, and if I was a teacher and my students used it as a reference I'd have them shot (probably with SuperSoakers at short range).
Conservapedia is ideologically driven garbage, and from what I understand its management is embarrassingly bad, not to mention relentlessly punitive. I'm really hoping they die on the vine, because it's clear at this point that they have nothing useful to contribute.
RE: #422343
And by the way, evidence, please. If you're talking about science, then I expect to see citations from mainstream scientific journals.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
