The contestants of the Miss America competition sound off on evolution.

[Android]

I know

No, you dont.
Your comment is what I found disgusting.
40 lashes? Take that @#%@ back to the bronze age where it belongs, (along with your beliefs).

 

[Father Heathen]

At the end of the day, the Creationists have girls that look more like Miss USA while the Macro-evolutionists have mates to select from that are generally ugly and diseased (Perhaps a few exceptions while they're under 28).



Better looking girls are clearly more inclined generally to believe in Creationism and that Macro-transition theory is speculation pushed by an absence of actual direct empirical evidence, and implications that fly in the face of the actual data such as the fact that no beneficial mutation is truly beneficial.

Natural selection clearly favors the Creationist. Clearly.

Teaching Micro-evolution and Subspeciation should be mandatory in schools. Teaching Macro-transition of one genus to another (let alone kingdom and order) as a confirmed fact should be illegal with penalty of 40 lashes.

The geocentric model, phlogiston theory, and phrenology should all also be mandatory in school, and any claims to the contrary should be illegal with penalty of burning at the stake.

 

[Shermana]

You are talking of creationism, I assume?

You assume incorrectly. I am referring to Macro-evolution, which takes ideas of Micro-evolution, forgets many of the details, and then assumes that 900 mutations caused monkey to turn into man.

Without a shred of evidence whatsoever though. Even Steven Jay Gould bemoaned the lack of transitionary structures.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

At the end of the day, the Creationists have girls that look more like Miss USA while the Macro-evolutionists have mates to select from that are generally ugly and diseased (Perhaps a few exceptions while they're under 28).



Better looking girls are clearly more inclined generally to believe in Creationism and that Macro-transition theory is speculation pushed by an absence of actual direct empirical evidence, and implications that fly in the face of the actual data such as the fact that no beneficial mutation is truly beneficial.

Natural selection clearly favors the Creationist. Clearly.

Teaching Micro-evolution and Subspeciation should be mandatory in schools. Teaching Macro-transition of one genus to another (let alone kingdom and order) as a confirmed fact should be illegal with penalty of 40 lashes.

I wouldn't say natural selection favors creationism, because the main factor you have presented for evolution is beauty. To say that beautiful people are "inclined generally to believe in Creationism" is baseless. Beauty is the main reproductive trait here, and whatever that person believes will most likely be taught to their children, be it creationism, theistic-supported evolution, or reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You assume incorrectly. I am referring to Macro-evolution, which takes ideas of Micro-evolution, forgets many of the details, and then assumes that 900 mutations caused monkey to turn into man.

Where does it say that monkey turned into man?

 

[Revoltingest]

There's one thing worse than Miss USA contestants blathering about science.....& that's a bunch of little bi****es on the internet carping about it & calling'm names.
Jeeze Louise....95% of people are below average intelligence anyway. At least these gals are decent looking. (That's what really matters about wimmin folk.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

95% of people are below average intelligence anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

What? You need a source or something?
Well, that statistic is based upon my original research.

 

[meogi]

95% of people are below average intelligence anyway.

I laughed out loud. You do understand statistics, right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, that statistic is based upon my original research.

That explains much.

 

[Revoltingest]

I laughed out loud. You do understand statistics, right?

Enuf to distrust much of what people try to prove with it.

 

[PolyHedral]

I laughed out loud. You do understand statistics, right?

Maybe he confused it with the fact that 95% of people have greater than average number of fingers.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

You assume incorrectly. I am referring to Macro-evolution, which takes ideas of Micro-evolution, forgets many of the details, and then assumes that 900 mutations caused monkey to turn into man.

Without a shred of evidence whatsoever though. Even Steven Jay Gould bemoaned the lack of transitionary structures.

lol. evolution is a fact. get over it.

 

[Father Heathen]

That explains much.

You're such a humorless curmudgeon.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're such a humorless curmudgeon.

I thought his comment was just his wry sense of humor.
He wouldn't dis me!
(I know how to statisticate. But my research is rather sloppy.)

 

[Shermana]

lol. evolution is a fact. get over it.

Yes, Micro-evolution is indeed a fact, that should be taught in schools.

But if you say that the ToE (Macro-evolution) is a fact, that is a lie and shows no actual understanding of the details and a willingness to make conclusions without evidence.

 

[Shermana]

There's one thing worse than Miss USA contestants blathering about science.....& that's a bunch of little bi****es on the internet carping about it & calling'm names.
Jeeze Louise....95% of people are below average intelligence anyway. At least these gals are decent looking. (That's what really matters about wimmin folk.)

As I said, Natural selection will always favor the Creationist, the Macro-evolutionist I think everyone agrees has a much uglier and used-up selection of mates to choose from.

The Atheists can complain how dumb they think the hot Creationist girls are all they want, it is just sour grapes that they have a far lower chance of even talking to them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, Micro-evolution is indeed a fact, that should be taught in schools.

But if you say that the ToE (Macro-evolution) is a fact, that is a lie and shows no actual understanding of the details and a willingness to make conclusions without evidence.

The only reason you object to it is because it conflicts with the a literal interpretation of ancient mythology and superstition. Therefore there is no choice other than to dismiss your stance as rubbish.

 

[Shermana]

The only reason you object to it is because it conflicts with the a literal interpretation of ancient mythology and superstition. Therefore there is no choice other than to dismiss your stance as rubbish.

You can go read the thread "Strange Thing about Creationism" and "Creationism and Evolution Comptability" where I establish the case in detail with numerous quotes and links from books and research papers and articles like Live science, Lamarckism is real, it's making a comeback (mostly) called "Epigenetics", maybe you've heard of it.

Nice of you to prove my point that Macros like to ignore the details of what anyone says and make it more of an ideological attack. It could just be sour grapes because you are jealous of the Creationist females. Just because Natural selection gave you the short thrift doesn't mean you gotta take it out on them.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Yes, Micro-evolution is indeed a fact, that should be taught in schools.

But if you say that the ToE (Macro-evolution) is a fact, that is a lie and shows no actual understanding of the details and a willingness to make conclusions without evidence.

there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. There is just one evolution.