Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

The experts have only proven the idea of microevolution, and that is where the usable science comes from. You're telling me that you believe whatever they say on that basis. Isn't that anti-intellectual?

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

How about just one piece of evidence for macroevolution? That would do nicely.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

What you're doing is simply giving the teapot the same essence and characteristics of God, and then calling it something else. That doesn't exactly disprove the idea of God, does it? I think you are trivializing the subject without understanding it. There are good reasons, philosophically and scientifically, to believe that an all powerful being created the Universe. There are logically sound reasons for deducing such a being exists. Have you ever studied the history of philosophy? The subject is a little bit more indepth than you are giving it credit for.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

How am I conflating the origin of the Universe with evolution? So far, the best idea they've come up with is that nothing created everything. Not exactly encouraging, is it?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

Again, this is anti-intellectual isn't it? You dismiss the evidence against your belief while being totally ignorant of what it is. Worse yet, you rail on those who do believe it without understanding their positions. You have also said that if evidence were to be posed, you would simply seek out someone who agreed with your view and copy and paste their views on it. Where exactly in that process is your own brain being used?

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

I used to believe what you believe. I stopped believing it because of the evidence, not in spite of it. It's easy to dismiss me but if you actually do investigate the major claims of evolution you will find, not indisputable proof, but a pile of weak, circumstantial evidence.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

No need to argue, their info on that page is clearly wrong. The math is simple.
It's perplexing that what appears to be a NASA page is so wrong about such a simple equation and data, but that's the fact.
EDIT:Oh, I see, this is a NASA "partner" page, not a NASA page. Still, there's absolutely no excuse for the incredibly poor math skills or confusion of 'width' with 'size' that they exhibit.

Ugh, so wrong. The gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the product of both masses. So a more massive object will indeed fall faster than a lighter object.

We can't really see it with a bowling ball and a feather, but we really shouldn't be teaching that all objects fall at the same speed.

There is misogyny in some mainstream games (from memory, I found GTAV to occasionally veer in that direction) but the examples she gives are so wrong they're either exaggerated, ignorant or purposefully misleading.

Dragon Age? Hitman? Really? Neither of these games can be in any way characterised as misogynistic. Dragon Age has strong main female characters, it displays the mistreatment of women but also racism and genocide. Hitman actively punishes you for killing civilians and gender really has little bearing on the game at all.

Slightly more women play mobile games than men today. Even before that we had the success of the Wii's general appeal and the huge sales of The Sims series before that. AAA titles still veer towards violent themes but that is not misogyny. If her views gain traction it's more on the basis of the preconceived and uninformed views of the general adult public rather than reality.

oh that is so wrong of a prank!

It does matter. You're eleven? Years old? Don't post just to feel superior. Post if you have something to say. Yes we all forget that from time to time, however your post contributes no actual value, but the point of the original reply wasn't so much as "you're so wrong, lol", as it was ironic. Yes spelling != grammar, but the irony is still valid.

Just... don't post unless you have something to say that supplies actual content and not an opinion.

Looks so wrong, yet feels so right.

You should tell NASA about this, they and nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations will be flabbergasted they got it so wrong. Good thing we have a conservative news and opinion site set up by Tucker Carlson to set them straight.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You are just a trolling punk, so why waste my time?

Also, I am still a cop, so...wrong again.

Related Posts: Basrats and Bereta: Construction Cat Calls
I found that especially funny because of these "dress like a slut, get treated like one" type of responses here.
I know, the word "slut" isn't nice and I'm not good a political correctness (I actually loathe it) but maybe the problem is not with the word but with our associations with it.
You see, the problem I have starts with the idea that there's something wrong with sluts. As a man (and therefore certainly a pig, at least in my case) I enjoy sluts tremendously. They are women who share, at least in general terms, my sexual morals and enjoy their sexuality as much as I do (theirs and mine). I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, I dislike STDs as much as anybody but being slutty doesn't mean automatically being careless, just more at risk. Maybe I just don't understand men who like their female sex partners to be well behaved little princesses. They either prefer very conservative sex (you know, when blowjobs seem kinky) or they are strangely rapey. Maybe it's just our manly discomfort of loosing control over female sexuality.
Then there is this notion of dressing "like a slut". Sure, there is unappropriate clothing. I wouldn't go to a funeral in my Spongebob Squarepants pyjamas. But why is it in todays times, in the western world that is covered in billboards full of women in bikinis, so wrong to walk the street dressed in your best "sexy hooker" halloween costume? Are these women on the billboards, the ones who strike sexualized poses to sell me beer, dressed like sluts too? Is a bikini "slutty clothing"? I'm pretty sure my mom once wore one and yours probably too. As long as the important parts are covered, it should be fine.
The real issue, though, is the idea that anybody has a right to comment on that. Loudly.
If I have a right to comment sluttly clothing, can I also comment on other clothing that isn't the percieved norm? Do I get to shout ghost and terrorism related jokes at women in burkas? Can I yell at cops to come and strip-search me because I have a thing for uniforms? Should I yell at anyone with unfortunate clothing choices? "Hey lady, don't shake that ass, it's too fat for these pants! I don't want the Blob to escape!"
No, it's only sexually provocative clothing that gets these reactions. And that's why I like the video above so much, because it shows what kind of comments you get. It's never "young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!" nor "What a beautiful skirt, is it silk?"
It is always amused, approving and at the same time disrespectful and sexually dominant. Often gleefull and too often actually misogynistic.
These are never positive comments and even if the words seem positive, they're harassment. It's nothing but sexual harassment. Otherwise these men would be yelling "Young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!"
Dress like a slut, get treated like one, that's just a lame excuse for men trying to control female sexuality.
Personally, I think if you dress like a slut, I should treat you with respect and kindness. Because I want sluts to like me. I'm a pig.

What's so wrong about this totally apt analogy is, when you cut the grass it grows faster!
EDIT: Daily I find my estimation of Israel more and more evil. Totally Fuck you, Israel....just plain FUCK YOU!

This map/video is so wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, to call the entirety of the present day United States "Indian Land" before the states were created is wrong and idiotic. Native Americans (another misnomer) were not present in every spot of every bit of the lands in any way. For the majority of the middle of the states, Natives were nomadic peoples, thus while they could lay claim to all of the land if you asked, it is just as dumb as saying that a bear owns all of the territory it can walk on.

Secondly, for those of you who think that Native Americans should have more reservations, you should read any number of books by Native American scholars that say that the worst thing the governments have done is treat Native Americans as separate from standard citizens of the countries that have them. What they should do is eliminate reservations altogether to get rid of the dependency trap that is killing the Native American people as we speak. One might say, "well, they will lose their culture." But this, too is incorrect. Have the Chinese lost their culture in North America? Have the varying kinds of Europeans? In my city many people still celebrate Chinese New Year and lots celebrate Saint Patrick's Day and Robbie Burns day (regardless of whether or not these are ex-pat holidays).

So in conclusion, what the government did in the past vis-a-vis the murder of Native Peoples was absolutely despicable. However, taking land was very often something that happened without bloodshed and was done with trades and treaties, the bloodshed that followed was a clash between terrified Europeans and the people whose culture they didn't understand. But for many of the incidents the Native Peoples sanctified the taking of the land.

Ok, I though this was going to awful, but I was so wrong. It actually made me want to go back and watch Star Wars again

*quality
*doublepromotoe

This is just going to end SO wrong. *eia