Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
angellous_evangellous im jsut trying to bring up a point here, im not a liar or trolling.. im just a botanist student i spend my life doing field studies and observational research. i spend my life in nature. yes i have brought this up a few times sorry for repeating myself and yes i did put this on another forum, but evolutionists who spend no time in nature, why exactly are there opinions more valid than mine? i am actually out there all day studying nature my opinions are much more valid becuase i experience nature i directly observe nature everyday.. why should we listen to evolutionists with no qualifications who just sit on the internet all day? i have been doing field research on my course now for 4 years... been round 100s of ecosystems and habitats... i have not observed evolution once.. evolution is not directly observable... becuase i study plant science i am interested in direct observation in this field. and evolution simply can not be observed.
You can't see a tulip turn into a rose, of course. By sitting around and watching plants, you're not going to see them change from one species into another. This is the problem. You don't understand the theory of evolution, and yet you argue against it. It's like arguing that the earth must be flat because that's the way you perceive it. Your experience working in nature doesn't qualify you as knowledgeable concerning evolution anymore than my experience doing helpdesk qualifies me to write computer programs. Unless you've actually studied evolution, you are no more qualified than I am on the subject.