Current Events > what is the worst liberal myth?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Even though their is no evidence of macro-evolution and a convenient missing link liberal still deny that macro evolution is debunked Sure dog breeding prove evolution... but not the pokemonesque evolution of darwinism ONLY MICRO EVOLUTION While warmism is a debunked myth their is a few elements that make this theory a bit more like a potential hypothesis so I vote for Darwinism
---

Liberals are tolerant.
---

Lol

Ok evolution is a myth and God created all beings
U such a genius
---

dolomedes posted...

if you learned about evolution from pokemon it's reasonable for you to deny it.

that said, if you deny evolution you're wrong.

zH0mPfR posted...

Liberals are tolerant.

---

dolomedes posted...

if you learned about evolution from pokemon it's reasonable for you to deny it.

that said, if you deny evolution you're wrong.

I did not learn about the proven micro evolution from pokemon no Macro evolution is as irrational as pokemon evolution I think it's hilarious that people take it as a fact despite the convenient missing link
---

round earthers
---

warmism?
---

That capitalism works.
---

Acting like theyre the nice guys lol.
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

warmism?

The climate change scam
---

what a wonderful topic
---

The vaccine stuff. That is just incredibly stupid.
---

Geno4LoveGeno4L posted...

dolomedes posted...

if you learned about evolution from pokemon it's reasonable for you to deny it.

that said, if you deny evolution you're wrong.

I did not learn about the proven micro evolution from pokemon no Macro evolution is as irrational as pokemon evolution I think it's hilarious that people take it as a fact despite the convenient missing link

No, it's not convenient at all actually. It's very inconvenient. But whereas as science has gone down the line of "This is pretty much the only thing that makes sense, we just need the final piece to put it completely to rest", you've taken that to mean "ahah! See, the entire model makes no sense at all because it all relies on unproven data".
---

Russia Collision.. tectonic plates don't move THAT much.
---

dolomedes posted...

if you deny evolution you're wrong

I think evolution is a pretty sound theory. But it's not without holes. We could be way off with evolution. Science has been wrong many times before. It's arrogant to believe we've got it all figured out now.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

dolomedes posted...

if you deny evolution you're wrong

I think evolution is a pretty sound theory. But it's not without holes. We could be way off with evolution. Science has been wrong many times before. It's arrogant to believe we've got it all figured out now.

I don't subscribe to "if you're deny evolution you're wrong" but for most everything I take the bertrand russell approach:

There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
---