"...overwhelming evidence supporting evolution..." *cough, cough, choke* Sure, it must be invisible or top-secret because no one has ever been able to show me any.
Zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system unless it conforms to your pre-conceived "theory"; and that is why evolutionism is a religion. When confronted by affirmative evidence that everything in your Darwinian book of fables is verifiably untrue (gill slits), you do not incorporate that information, Instead you lie, twist words and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little evolutionism box. It's really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.
Sorry :-).
46 comments
"...overwhelming evidence supporting creation..." *cough, cough, choke* Sure, it must be invisible or top-secret because no one has ever been able to show me any.
Zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system unless it conforms to your pre-conceived "theory"; and that is why creationism is a religion. When confronted by affirmative evidence that everything in your religious book of fables is verifiably untrue (talking donkeys), you do not incorporate that information, Instead you lie, twist words and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little creationism box. It's really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.
Fixed :-).
Unfortunately, gabbling on the internet like an ape who can't handle his testosterone and who is busy slaying all and sundry, except for the virgin girls, on the orders of His General, the...eh Mighty Sky Daddy, does not disprove the fact of evolution.
It's very hard to show you something when you slam your hands over your ears, shut your eyes, turn in the other direction and scream "la la la la I can't hear it so you're not presenting it so it doesn't exist la la la la" again and again until we leave.
We have literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution, museums all over the world are filled with them.
The scientific method IS to incorporate new data into old data, stupid. There’s no belief system, though, as it's all evidence-based. If anyone really came up with something that disproved evolution, he or she would be world-famous, and probably get a Nobel Prize. I'd say that few today has read that Darwinian book, as the ToE has "evolved" so much since then that it's just a foot-note nowadays. Darwin predicted quite a few things that have since been proven valid, with the help of DNA and other NEW DATA.
When was the last time Christianity incorporated new data into its belief system? Unless you count Islam, it’s probably never happened.
Whoa, that mirror is now dangerously shiny, honey; you might hurt your eyesight!
You really are quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint. I'm sorry for you.
"Sure, it must be invisible or top-secret because no one has ever been able to show me any. "
That's because religidiots like you intentionally dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't agree with your book of mythology. Any evidence we present to you is immediately hand-waved away as "not evidence".
From AIG's "Statement of Faith":
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "
Instead you lie, twist words and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little creationism box. It's really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.
Let's see: Ham, Hovind, Comfort, Cameron, Stein...
And then you say we are the ones being closed-minded.
Willful blindness is not the same as not seeing evidence. This is like the person seeing a giraffe and saying "There ain't no such animal."
The evidence, I'm sure, has been presented; you just refuse to see it. That makes the problem yours, not that of those who accept evolution.
Is Oboehner actually Wendy Wright? If you have not seen it; Richard Dawkins conducts an interview with Ms. Wright and she constantly harps about there being "no evidence" and when Prof. Dawkins explains exactly what evidence there is and that it can be found in, among other places, museum she simply repeats "there's no evidence" again. A quick search on YouTube for "Dawkins Wendy Wright" should lead you to it. It also shows that Prof. Dawkins has thew patience of a saint.
Boom, Boom, there goes two more irony detectors, high quality Ray Comfort proof ones. They cost me a pretty penny.
"...overwhelming evidence supporting evolution..." *cough, cough, choke* Sure, it must be invisible or top-secret because no one has ever been able to show me any.
It's kind of hard when you keep your eyes tightly closed and fingers in your ears while saying "La la la la la I can't hear you!"
*edit* OHP beat me to it.
*cough, cough, choke*
See, right there, no one over here told you to eat it to get rid of it.
What's next Oboehner? Gonna start snacking on evidence of the Inquisition?
"there goes two more irony detectors, high quality Ray Comfort proof ones. They coated a pretty penny."
And that coating was what MADE the penny pretty.
"Zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system unless it conforms to your pre-conceived 'theory'".
This has to be a poe. Not even a fundie could type this with a straight face, right? Right?
Please?
<from fetal position under desk>Someone tell me this is a poe?
Yup, it's all top secret--except for the fossil record.
And fossil transitional series.
And of course conserved retroviral insertions, transposons and pseudogenes--the word's out on those. Oh, and cladistics. Atavistic and vestigial anatomic structures. Anatomic, genetic and peptide homologies. Convergence of independent phylogenies. Biogeographic distributions of species, etc. etc.
And of course there's the little thing that we've actually seen evolution occur in real time, in living populations, including the extinction and generation of new species populations (which by definition represents macroevolution).
It's not that the evidence is invisible or top secret--it's that you can't recognize it if you see it.
OK, sweetie, but before you can understand evolution, you have to take a science class or two. "What? Y'mean I actually have to KNOW something??" Yes dear, you do. Even our evening course, "Evolution for dummies" has not yet been boiled down to fit on a bumper sticker.
"Zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system unless it conforms to your pre-conceived "theory"." OK, we are going to have to enroll you in a course in English comprehension first. But I'll warn you, it's going to sting a little bit....
Consider that as equipment gets better sciience changes to conform to the available evidence.
Embryos show what look like gill slits. Now we know that the formation becomes the bones of the inner ear (I think)
Open a biology book for evolution, check out talk origins website for more, a museum for fossils amd the geology and astronomy for evidence of time greater than 6000 years.
saying sorry when you dont mean it is a sin.
This is why throwing all the scientific data in the world will do nothing. You can cite any reputable journal you want, but it pales in comparison to the power of forced denial.
Worse?
This poster thinks that it's the "evolutionists" (that is, rational scientists) who are in denial.
There is no upper limit of abstraction, here. It's turtles all the way down.
@ pete
re; Wendy Wright vs. Dawkins; I've seen part of that, several times. It's just too painful too take in all at one sitting. {{shudder}}
I now believe in zombies. They can at least be dead from the neck up.
- - - -
@ Kent Comfort Ham
You're thorts are unvaluable. Tks
You know, just because you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears whenever we present you with the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You really have to start coming up with better arguments, guys. You'll never beat us at this rate.
Let's turn this around.
We already know what would falsify evolution, and probably better than you do. So what would you be willing to accept as evidence that your 7-day special creation that took place only a few thousand years ago never actually happened?
If the answer is "nothing," then no further discussion between you and anyone else is possible. There's no basis for dialogue, and no point.
Zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system unless it conforms to your pre-conceived "theory"; and that is why evolutionism is a religion.
Even if that were true, that still wouldn't make it a religion. Besides, science has moved on a bit since 1859 and it is you who are unable to deal with that.
@ Swede
When was the last time Christianity incorporated new data into its belief system?
Higher Biblical criticism, archaeological and historical evidence, evolution itself... Much of this has been incorporated into the thinking of the mainstream churches. What distinguishes fundamentalists from the mainstream is that they don't incorporate new data.
The only people rallying against evolution are creationists and conspiracy nutters. No scientist takes them seriously, so they aren't tested by the claims of the anti-science lobby, nor do they need to distort the evidence to fit the theory, because evolution is established science and no research paper has successfully contradicted it in journals. Creationism on the other hand fits into this analogue perfectly, and the reason you have a hard time accepting science is because it destroys the validity of your favourite violent, gore filled holy book.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.