www.theEXITmovie.com
"I would start with Origin of Species and read the 1000+ books written on the topic since then. How many books prove God? Oh right, one."
You will read another thousand and not find proof for evolution. The whole belief rests on faith. I read every page of Origin of Species and it was drier than a ten year-old peanut butter sandwich. The Bible doesn't prove God. It doesn't need to. We know that God exists because of the incredible order of Nature and our God-given conscience. It is simply the Instruction Book for those who know Him.
image
31 comments
The Bible doesn't prove God. It doesn't need to. We know that God exists because of the incredible order of Nature and our God-given conscience. It is simply the Instruction Book for those who know Him.
"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
- Socrates.
In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, you Cre(a)ti(o)nists needed two books: "Of Pandas and People", which in itself was the stealth material for what was really inside: the Bible.
Fortunately, it was the Radar of Reality based on scientific fact which saw through the former, to reveal the latter. The Rapier anti-aircraft missile system with updated sensor suite which saw the B-2 of Christain Lies was Judge John E. Jones III.
Just one Conservative Christian shot down the Cre(a)ti(o)nism by Stealth that is your lies .
Why do you need three deities to prove one point - destroyed by one human : and one who is a Christian - if we're going down the metaphorical path, Ray Cumfart...?!
Just watched "Inherit the Wind" and am amazed that we're still fighting this battle. I'm sure if you actually read "The Origin of Species," every time you turned a page you thought, "Well the Bible shows all this is nonsense," and had the same reaction to any other book that tried to explain the concepts.
Today I learned that Ray Comfort eats ten-year-old peanut butter sandwiches. It's important to note that he only eats ten-year-old peanut butter sandwiches, not ten-year-old pb & j or pb & banana sandwiches, just two pieces of bread slapped together with some pb in between; what a boring person.
You should try actually paying attention next time you read it, instead of being disappointed that it doesn't have mass murder and pillars of flame from the heavens in it. Darwin's entire approach was one of observation. He noticed something that didn't make sense according to any of the theories of his time - scientific or religious - and so he set out to come up with a plausible explanation for it. Over the centuries, of course, we've added new observations, tested and retested parts of the theory, but at its core, it's still about explaining what we see in the world around us. It's not about "faith" in an idea; it's about confusion about a result.
(Yes, this does mean evolution is the world's most meticulously researched "just so" story, along with a lot of astronomy, but that's as may be.)
I look at the world around me, and I look at the world within me, and know that my favorite mythology is true! Any adherent of any religion can make the same claim for the same reasons. It's called confirmation bias up to a point. After that it's called delusional.
"We know that God exists because of the incredible order of Nature ...".
Whenever I see statements such as this, I am reminded of the Douglas Adams quote, "This hole fits me perfectly, said the puddle."
"On the Origin of Species" was written in 1859, and has the convoluted wordiness common to that time, but it is still an interesting book. Describing it as "dry" is meaningless; the question is whether Darwin made a case for evolution. He did, and all the decades since that have built upon his foundation - not because it is "dry", but because it is fact-filled and valid.
Once again I'd like to quote Dara Ó Briain:
"And then he says >there's more to life than evidence... < [beat] Get in the fecking bag."
Also the usual: Banana Boy thinks that evolutionary theory stopped at Origin of Species. Bitch please, additional evidence has been piling up for 150 fucking years now and Darwinian evolution isn't considered entirely accurate by this point. Science changes. That is, too, a kind of evolution. Maybe read a newer book on the subject and leave poor Charles alone.
If I did not know any better I would say that the picture shown is meant to satire the fact of all the evidence for Evolution and Creationists only having The Bible, yet still claim to be the winners by default.
I wager also that whether or not he has read Origin of Species will not stop him from still conflating Evolution and The Big Bang as part of the same theory.
We have the fossils. We win.
You slipped on a banana peel. You lose.
@Norman
"If I did not know any better I would say that the picture shown is meant to satire the fact of all the evidence for Evolution and Creationists only having The Bible, yet still claim to be the winners by default."
I thought it satirized the fact that all the evolution books were about fossils, while the bible is about a creation myth.
"You will read another thousand and not find proof for evolution."
Well, you have a point there. The proof of evolution doesn't come from books. It comes from performing experiments and examining the evidence. Here's a simple experiment you can try yourself: Examine both a food crop used by humans, and a wild example of the same. Let's see, what's a good example?
Oh, I know! Are you familiar with the banana?
I read every page of Origin of Species and it was drier than a ten year-old peanut butter sandwich
image
Steve1989 has eaten peanut butter in MREs that were decades old, yet was still perfectly edible.
The Jesus of YouTube has devoured your 'analogy', Ray Cumfart.
You're nothing more than a putrid lump of meat in a small C Ration can that saw better days during the Korean War; anything you say is when he first uses his trusty P-38 tin opener on such.
Steve1989: 'Nice hiss!'
He is basically dismissing the evidence in favor of evolution as being too boring, and saying that creationism is true because he believes it is.
The fact he actually posted this as if it was evidence and/or a valid, coherent argument in favor of creationism says a lot.
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.