Yup .Isn't it pretty much well known over the internet now that the Onion is satire?
No problem boss. I'll just tell anyone whom I warn that PMing you will result in an immediate ban.John Adams, I don't want any more PMs in my inbox asking why they were warned by you.
I obviously realized that when i read his post!I'm sorry that I have to do this, but warning:warning: to Zeo for threatening ssj_paul. Granted, when Paul reads that, he might not realize that you were threatening him, warning to you nonetheless.
Now it is;Isn't it pretty much well known over the internet now that the Onion is satire?
Once again, now i know that!The Onion is a satire website.
I feel sorry for anyone who thought this article was trying to engage in intelligent discourse.
Gravity is not a law. Newton's theory of gravitation is a scientific theory. There are holes in this theory, and the ones mentioned in the article (like, no one really knows what gravity is caused by, gravity doesn't mix with quantum physics) are perfectly valid. The same might be said for Darwin's theory of evolution (I dunno, I'm no biologist). ID tries to cover those holes by claiming that God did it. IF does the same for gravity. So I find it a very well set up parody.John Adams, I don't want any more PMs in my inbox asking why they were warned by you. I am asking you to stop with the fake warnings.
Also, IF is absolutely absurd as a parody. Attacking a theory, and attacking a law are two different things.
There's a huge difference between not finding it funny and thinking it's real.i like how if you dont find something funny, its obviously because it went over your head or its too highbrow, and not because you simply didn't find it funny. The Onion is just fake news lol. It doesn't interest me. I'm not saying its ****ty, im just saying its not my taste.
Macro Evolution is not observable, Gravitation is. That's why I don't like the comparison.Gravity is not a law. Newton's theory of gravitation is a scientific theory. There are holes in this theory, and the ones mentioned in the article (like, no one really knows what gravity is caused by, gravity doesn't mix with quantum physics) are perfectly valid. The same might be said for Darwin's theory of evolution (I dunno, I'm no biologist). ID tries to cover those holes by claiming that God did it. IF does the same for gravity. So I find it a very well set up parody.
Gravitation in black holes is quite hard to observe. As for viewing macro evolution, this might be the closest we can get: http://www.archive.org/details/sims_evolved_virtual_creatures_1994. I know, no proof, still impressiveMacro Evolution is not observable, Gravitation is. That's why I don't like the comparison.
Micro Evolution and Natural Selection are observable, but macro evolotion, if it happens, happens at such a slow pace none of us will ever observe it in action.
That only applies on our planet. And it still doesn't tell us what actually causes gravitation, just that it's there.If you fall off of your chair right now, you will observe gravitation. The point is, Gravitation is a whole lot more stable and provable than evolution.
I know, I've stopped. I was kidding about the "You're banned if you PM Cuc" thing.Sub, I'm not joking, no more counterfit warnings.
The thing about that is the Catholic Church has accepted evolution, and considers it to be an extension of God because they don't believe the Bible should be taken literally. It's hardcore creationists who take issue with evolution because they're going by the Old Testament, and believe it means exactly what it says. Jews don't take the Old Testament literally, so it's strange to me that a Christian denomination would.I know, I've stopped. I was kidding about the "You're banned if you PM Cuc" thing.
As for the evolution vs gravity, I do feel that both theories have their holes in them, but the theory of gravity is respected where as evolution isn't because of evolutions implications with religion. I understand that this may not be the reason you don't subscribe to evolution, but I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who dislike it for that very reason.
So wrong about taking it literally, but right about everything within the OT? I doubt even they subscribe to that kind of logic.Well, I suppose that to them, the Jews were wrong about Jesus so they can be wrong about whether or not the OT should be taken literally.