I agree with you. The title does sound immature, but the truth is that evolution is so ridiculous a claim that I can truly understand why is would be called stupid. I have called it by that name myself at times.
I also don't wish to offend anyone, but the concept of evolution is so outrageous and silly, that I would truly be embarrassed to call myself an evolutionist.
It is true that you have called evolution silly and stupid. In fact you have strongly implied the anyone who believes that evolution occurred is silly and stupid.
What is not true, is that you have done anything to provide substantive support for your conclusions regarding evolution.
I also don't wish to offend anyone, but your video posts are the weakest and most unscientific conglomerations of incredulity and conspiracy claptrap that have ever graced the pages of a website that tries to maintain a veneer of credibility.
When confronted with evidence that demonstrates the contradictions and egregious errors in those videos, you either fail to respond or you respond with another unsupported assertion or a video link that is just as lacking in substantive content as the original. Many times the second video doesn't even address issue being discussed.
I understand that you are a busy person and addressing some of the topics of discussion requires actual research. However, you do seem to have time to show up and repeat these same assertions.
In view of the observations I have posted above, I believe you can understand why I find it extremely difficult to ascribe any kind of credibility to these statements of yours that you regurgitate continuously on this board.
For a similar scenario, research the "tomato effect".
Interesting! However, which group is clinging to their beliefs regarding origins despite evidence that contradicts those beliefs? Is it evolution supporters or evolution deniers? What methods should be used to resolve this quandary?
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."
—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
Did you plan on providing a quote from this century or at least from the last 30 years? I would think that science has advanced a bit since 1976.
