Moderator: Community Team
got tonkaed wrote:you would do yourself well to learn what the scientific community understands the word theory to be and see how it differs from how you understand the word theory.
RustyMonkey wrote:Now, I know I'm not one of the kewl kidz, with the fancy degree and the fancy office at the fancy university with the fancy lab coat. But I have something even more important than all of that: the ability to THINK for myself without going along with the crowd.
I'm talking about the so-called "theory of evolution" of course. (Note: Theory. We're going to come back to that in a bit or two.)
And I've noticed the little biologist clique has run into some absolutely *unacceptable* opposition from the churchgoin' folk that don't take too kindly to being told what they have to teach to thier children. Who don't want their children being told they're a bunch of monkeys without tails.
Up to now, your solution has been to ban, ban, ban. Don't like traditional values being taught in our public schools? Meh, just ban it. Keep it out. No debate, no discussion, just ban it. The Bible? Replace it with a fresh copy of Origin of Species.
No debate, no discussion.
Well, I reckon I've got a better way for you to handle this OH-SO-unpleasant criticism. Here's how: You ready?
Don't just talk about "theories". We don't want to hear about theories. We want to hear about *facts*. Cold, hard, facts, not speculative "theories". We want to see proof. Facts. Figures. Documentation. Pictures. Video. Research. Heck, even toss in a statistical analysis here and there.
Hey, we're all for bowing our heads down to the new Saint Darwin. But before we're going to get swept up into this fig ol' bad, we want to see the actually PROOF of the evolution.
Not theories. Oh no.
RustyMonkey wrote:Now, I know I'm not one of the kewl kidz, with the fancy degree and the fancy office at the fancy university with the fancy lab coat. But I have something even more important than all of that: the ability to THINK for myself without going along with the crowd.
I'm talking about the so-called "theory of evolution" of course. (Note: Theory. We're going to come back to that in a bit or two.)
And I've noticed the little biologist clique has run into some absolutely *unacceptable* opposition from the churchgoin' folk that don't take too kindly to being told what they have to teach to thier children. Who don't want their children being told they're a bunch of monkeys without tails.
Up to now, your solution has been to ban, ban, ban. Don't like traditional values being taught in our public schools? Meh, just ban it. Keep it out. No debate, no discussion, just ban it. The Bible? Replace it with a fresh copy of Origin of Species.
No debate, no discussion.
Well, I reckon I've got a better way for you to handle this OH-SO-unpleasant criticism. Here's how: You ready?
Don't just talk about "theories". We don't want to hear about theories. We want to hear about *facts*. Cold, hard, facts, not speculative "theories". We want to see proof. Facts. Figures. Documentation. Pictures. Video. Research. Heck, even toss in a statistical analysis here and there.
Hey, we're all for bowing our heads down to the new Saint Darwin. But before we're going to get swept up into this fig ol' bad, we want to see the actually PROOF of the evolution.
Not theories. Oh no.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
The Weird One wrote:There's already a thread for this.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The Weird One wrote:There's already a thread for this.
A thread here and several in other forums.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
InkL0sed wrote:Blatant troll is trolling.

Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
a.sub wrote:Whats the book about the scopes trial again? i read a few chapters from it a while back, but i forget the name so i could never go back and finish it up![]()
plz and thx

a.sub wrote:Whats the book about the scopes trial again? i read a few chapters from it a while back, but i forget the name so i could never go back and finish it up![]()
plz and thx
MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
Haggis_McMutton wrote:MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199
I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4o
Haggis_McMutton wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199
I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4o
You may be onto something there. But you've failed to take into account that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.