The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists say, you'll be changing you; mind a lot.
The ability to change one's mind when faced with new evidence is a very valuable thing. It is what all science is founded on and what separates it from dogma.
A couple questions; The Cambrian Period was roughly 5-6 hundred million yrs. ago. Given the slow pace of evolution, It would seem there has not been sufficient time for life to have evolved from simple, single celled life forms, to the level of complexity of mammals and finally modern man.
What exactly are you basing this on? Why do you not think that 545,000,000 years is enough time for that? Also, as an aside, multicellular and eukaryotic life predates the Cambrian.
The ability to change one's mind when faced with new evidence is a very valuable thing. It is what all science is founded on and what separates it from dogma.
Yet, they continue to pass on inconclusive evidence as fact and have it's erroneous conclusions taught as fact in our schools.
Yet, they continue to pass on inconclusive evidence as fact and have it's erroneous conclusions taught as fact in our schools.
I'm not sure who 'they' are meant to be nor what 'inconclusive evidence' you're referring to. The evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming (transitional forms, physical and molecular vestiges, genetic information, anatomy) and no other hypothesis accounts for that evidence. It is as 'proven' as anything could be.
The evidence I see suggests if you buy everything these scientists say, you'll be changing you; mind a lot.
You (and the public generally) buy technological items, medicines and foodstuffs that work all the time and which are based on the scientific theories of the scientists that you denigrate. How can this be if those theories are so flaky?
I'm not sure who 'they' are meant to be nor what 'inconclusive evidence' you're referring to. The evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming (transitional forms, physical and molecular vestiges, genetic information, anatomy) and no other hypothesis accounts for that evidence. It is as 'proven' as anything could be.
I'm sure they are all quite satisfied with themselves
Let's just Hitchen's Razor this, there is very little point in the dialogue. I'd imagine even if we did teach him science, he has limited/no capacity to retain or apply or appreciate any of it anyway.
I'm sure they are all quite satisfied with themselves
Scientists are rarely 'satisfied'. There's always more work to be done. Nonetheless the evidence for macroevolution and common ancestry is very extensive.
You are not going to get any evidence from Racoon, he just denies the science in favour of his almost total literal interpretation of the bible. His actually scientific knowledge is ZERO, a big fat one at that. The best you are going to get is some biblical verses.
You are not going to get any evidence from Racoon, he just denies the science in favour of his almost total literal interpretation of the bible. His actually scientific knowledge is ZERO, a big fat one at that. The best you are going to get is some biblical verses.
I don't expect any - I hypothesize that with sufficient indoctrination of any ideology, especially religious ideology, something messes up certain neural connections that critical thinking is no longer possible with notable psychiatric features like marked inclination to violence and verbal abuse, among other symptoms.
I'd be interested to see if it ever makes it to ICD-11/DSM-6