Science, Creation & Evolutionsubstitute biology teacherIn a way, yes. Tuppence answered my posts with scientific facts, but those facts did not very much sense in regard to my post. Tuppence presented them however as if they did. This is what I call presenting scientific facts in a non-scientific way. E.g. in the article it says somewhere that survival of the fittest means that the one with the most offspring will survive, and the fittest is the one with the most offspring. This is a scientific fact, repeated in the thread by tuppence. I answer her that the fittest is the one with the most offspring because the fittest is the one that is the best adapt to the current environment. Tuppence again repeats that it is a circular reasoning, completely ignoring my answer on why it is ok that it is a circular reasoning. And in fact she was wrong, because the dictionary defenition of the fittest is not the one with the most offspring but the one best adapted for the current environment. (and will therefore have the most offspring, thanks to natural selection) So tuppence was completely wrong if you put all the facts together. Even though the facts were correct. What bothers me most is that sticks to her wrong point even now it is so obvious that it is wrong. That is what is called ignorance by Non-Christian. And I agree with him. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame