@Lucienne d'Anwyl Bull

Fucking shit

you can make the case for it being knowledge

of a bunch of inbred incestuous sandniggers

and you didnt observe the complete evolution of life on earth either

It's based on the dogmatic assumption that the bible is the literal inerrant word of God

@Lucienne d'Anwyl Didn't need to, that's not how observation works in science

pretty sure creationism is literally just the assertion that God created life. that's it lol

but you really can't make a case for Creationism being based on OBSERVATION

considering that christians recognize the bible as having been written by men

Aren't you in school for physics?

i think thats a rather unfair claim

How do you not know this shit?

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck did we observe protogenesis?

no?

exactly

You've obviously never actually listened to creationists @Lucienne d'Anwyl

@excursion12 (redha, richtginger) Do you mean abiogenesis?

just because you think poorly of some people that argue an idea

ah yes, thanks

abiogenesis

@Lucienne d'Anwyl I don't think bpoorly of them

doesnt mean that the idea itself is bad

@excursion12 (redha, richtginger) that has 0 to do with Evolution

likewise you are arguing like such things are monolithic

@Jack of Trades I know, that's my point

as opposed to different people having different views

@excursion12 (redha, richtginger) not anymore than we can make the case for creationism simply based on observation, yes

i sure do hope this one isnt porn

@Lucienne d'Anwyl No, again. I'm arguing that the creationists are stupid because I've actually listened to their arguments. Creationism is, by and large, the denial of evolution.

o

k good

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck exactly

They don't just "have different views" They are IGNORANT of the facts.

because some people you dont like propagate an idea

@Nat would smash

you thus deny anything similar to their ideas