and we know that 99% the passengers on the Titanic did not believe that is was sinking at least at first, can we assume it is still floating around out there somewhere?
2007-11-27 05:18:15 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Common sence would say no, but you are talking about evolutionest, and common sense does not seem to appy.
2007-11-28 02:46:05 · answer #1 · answered by Soul Warror 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Scientists accept evolution based on masses of evidence. It's not a matter of "believing in evolution".
On the other hand, the passengers on the Titanic were not aware of the facts. The crew, who were aware of the facts, knew it was sinking. In your analogy, the crew are more like scientists, the passengers who did not believe it was sinking are more like creationists.
2007-11-27 05:38:39 · answer #2 · answered by lilagrubb 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Guess so. And if over 99% of the world's popluation didn't believe that Jim Jones or David Koresh were prophets or gods, can we assume that those two were telling the truth?
Let's see what else must be true according to your brand of "logic":
The moon landing was a hoax.
Adolf Hitler is still alive somewhere in South America.
Scientology is all true.
If you seriously believe that because 99% of a group of people believe something it counts as proof of the very opposite of what they believe, you've got serious mental issues. Granted that just because the overwhelming majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's usually something to take into consideration.
2007-11-27 05:22:15 · answer #3 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer understand the place to procure your statistics in spite of the shown fact that it exhibits which you have have faith a lie. there are numerous greater scientists that have faith in introduction that the 0.14 p.c. you state. besides there is not any way you may tutor evolution. Zip. Nada. in case you assert you may in a laboratory carry out some type of evolutionary apothecary substance exhibiting that it may ensue does no longer mean it may interior the remotest element ensue by any evolutionary "hypothetical" argument. You tutor which you at the instant are not even employing a imaginitive skill to think of in case you swallow such strains that they provide you that it is shown. For there is none. present your evidence. do no longer cite others works, cite the place you on my own tutor it. those citations you assert have extra approximately desktops and medical advancements do no longer tutor evolution in any respect, and there has been great strides through great scientists who have faith interior the single authentic God and Creationism ex nihlo. So gird up your loins upward push up see in case you may present the info you so boldly declare as presentable. Oh an internet site would not tutor an element - it in simple terms proves which you suspect and participate through religion that what they are telling is the reality. - (a clue - so did they in Germany the comparable ingredient interior the latter 0.5 of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century)
2016-10-18 05:52:53 · answer #4 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go ahead and believe what you want.
To compare the reality of evolution to the panic and confusion that took place on the Titanic is not only specious, it's idiotic. Small wonder your fellow cult members have laughed. Apparently the death of innocent people strikes them as funny.
What a disgusting cult you belong to.
Oh and by the way, Darwin was right. He's been proven right time and time again. Anyone with a REAL education would know that...
2007-11-27 05:26:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Where did you hear that 99% of scientists believe in evolution? The correct number is about 49%.
2007-11-27 16:02:39 · answer #6 · answered by Ukrgrl 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
False analogy. Scientists study evolution. The passengers only knew what they were told, which describes creationists far more than scientists.
2007-11-27 05:22:14 · answer #7 · answered by bsxfn 3 · 13⤊ 0⤋
The Titanic didn't take 140 + years to sink. (The time elapsed since Darwin came up with his theory)
2007-11-27 05:20:50 · answer #8 · answered by Skalite 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
I don't even care what the % is of scientists. Evolution can be seen and reproduced in biological organisms.
2007-11-27 05:23:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Great point. Never has a stronger argument been made against evolution. Goddidit.
2007-11-27 05:23:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Geees, if you can not tell the difference between these two things you really should not have children we do not need that kind of addition to the gene pool.
2007-11-27 05:53:01 · answer #11 · answered by raven blackwing 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋