The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).
24 comments
Show us a Creationist that isn't a member of an organized religion (or claims to have a special relationship with a supernatural being) and perhaps you won't be accused of promoting a "ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview."
Oh no! They are suppressing and labeling you! They are being mean and unfair! They call you evil, conniving, unscientific, a religious fanatic, stereotyping you and just ignoring all your contributions to science, huh?
Now, just get around to actually PROVING something, and maybe your whining about how creationism is unjustly dismissed will have some merit. Otherwise, it is just whining; a call for treating pseudoscientific jumbles of oft refuted and ill-founded arguments on the same level as observed science.
Also, the "only a theory" meme indicates that you are retarded. Sorry.
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific.
That's because it IS that way.
Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist,
There is no such thing as an evolutionist.
if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview.
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).
Another person does not know the scientific meaning of the term "theory."
The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt
But the young-earth creationist model has been established to be wrong beyond reasonable doubt. Of course there's still unreasonable doubt, like "maybe the speed of light changed" or "maybe God kept the water from the Flood in a big canopy of water above the "firmament" because He knew He'd need it later to destroy the world with.
Creation invokes the supernatural to explain the natural. Think about what the phrase natural science means.
Evolution has plenty of evidence for it. That's why it's a "scientific theory" and not just a "theory". Then again, any good theory will have some evidence behind it.
and if you dare to call an apple an apple...
Words have meanings. That's what allows us to communicate. If you just decide you're going to change what you think they mean, then ya, expect to be ridiculed.
"Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled."
Yes. As a dumbass.
Dumbass.
It is not a "stereotype", it is a true parameter for the debate and a definition of the respective players. No, you creationists may not move the goalposts or change definitions.
It is Science versus religion; Reason versus superstition; Reality versus primitive conjecture. Even more than in a court of law, physical evidence holds a great degree of validity. "It said/He said/She said/They all said" isn't worth a hill of beans if there is even a hint of bullshit.
Science doesn't like bullshit. Science kills bullshit wherever it is found. Die, bullshit, die!
UGH! One more time... ToE is not a "model of origins." It says nothing about the origin of life or the universe or whatever straw man it is you fucktards keep trying to assign to it. It is only concerned with life as it changes after the first biological replicator.
He spends all those words setting up what might have been an interesting approach to an article about EvC only to shoot himself in the foot in the last sentence. They're just so so dumb!
"The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific."
They portray it that way because it is.
"The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution)."
You're not very smart, are you?
Actually, it is fundies who create the science vs religion argument. Others are rather content to let things be and not have to take a side or make an issue out of things that have no business being an issue in the first place.
If fundies didn't fight so hard against evolution they wouldn't find so much to fight about .
The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).
There. That sentence right there. That's how I know you're an idiot.
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.