Lets read from the bible and see what is considered as a given truth from it:
What two witness about should be esteblished as truth.
We need two independent witnessess who can witness about something inorder for it to be true:
For instance, seeing a gnome while going to sleep on sleeping pills is considered to be a lie because only one can witness about it.
In the same manners evolution is considered a lie because only Darwin has proposed the idea that we have evolved from lower state life forms during a time laps of some millions of years:
We do not have two independent witnessess when it comes to evolution. We have a set of scientists who believe in one witness (Darwin) and are dedicating their lives to examine his testemony.
69 comments
The basis of science is that ANYONE can do the measurement or observation or whatever, and get the same result. (Called 'reproducible observation') Babbling moron!
And what is this OBSESSION with just ONE scientist, Darwin? There are other scientists whose work also repudiates your Literalist fetish.
Ok. Let's apply that logic.
Hands up everyone who has personally seen Jesus crucified.
Looks like we don't have two witnesses, I guess it can't be true.
OK, let's read from the bible:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."
Uh, wait a minute...who were the two people who witnessed this?
You fail, fundtard.
" ... We do not have two independent witnessess when it comes to evolution. ..."
True. We have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions.
Two independent witnesses? Three words: Alfred. Russell. Wallace.
Now, have you got two independent witnesses for any damn thing claimed in the Bible?
If you called for witnesses of evolution, you couldn't move for the crowd. And some of those postgrads don't bathe that often.
Let's try it for your book, shall we?
Well?
OK, so if one person says it - faggeddaboudit.
[sarcasm]Hey you're right. I've never noticed that before. Charles Darwin is the only one to propose evolution. There has never been any independent validation of it. Gullible scientists the world over have just been taking his word for it. What were they thinking? [/sarcasm]
Oh, it hurts just to type such bullshit.
ROFLMAO.
Did anyone else, while reading this, feel like they'd just driven over the logic cliff? "Uhuh, ok, alright sure, ... wait, whaaaa???"
As if only evolution, and no other science is at odds with holy book literalists. (Or for that matter, not just science, but history, logic, trigonometry, traditional theology, etc.)
"The popular use and scientific use of the term "theory" are very different! A scientific theory, resulting from the application of the scientific method, is an explanation for a phenomenon or set of phenomena based on extensive evidence and testing. The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered from observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory. For example, the atomic theory of matter states that matter is composed of particles called atoms in various arrangements. The theory of evolution is the only explanation for the origin of life that accounts for the fossil, anatomical, molecular (including genetic), behavioral and geological evidence. Although they continue to argue over the details of exactly how the various mechanisms of evolution operate, biologists long ago concluded that evolution happens. This is because evolution explains all of the evidence far better than all other proposed explanations for the origin of life."
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
How many people witnessed the Ten Commandments being carved? One. And that was the guy who actually did the carving. Therefore Moses is a liar, and the Ten Commandments can be discarded.
Well, okay, maybe not discarded. Those stone tablets will make nice bookends for my library of publications that explain how evolution is an established fact that can be observed by anybody on the entire fucking planet who takes more than three minutes to learn about the god damn subject.
Science doesn't rely on witnesses you ignorant moron, as we know witnesses are fallible all the time; they see aliens probing their asses, demons, UFO's and worst off all you get those real idiots who "witness" their illusions to any poor sod passing. That is why science, being independent of Witnesses is so successful and why those things that rely on witnesses alone lead to conspiracy theories and miscarriages of justice. You get that moron.
<b>We need two independent witnessess who can witness about something inorder for it to be true.</b>
What if the two people in question were drunk as hell?
Jesus was at least two witnesses.
and
that girl was the only witness to the rape therefore those scars must be due to masturbation.
according to this person's logic
Yes, I'm sure that every Scientist that studies Evolution is actually just a Literature Student, reading and re-reading The Origin of Species. They probably do no new studies and research of their own.
You know, I'm willing to bet that I can find two witnesses that will say they've seen Jesus in drag selling blowjobs for $5.
Is it true? According to this person, yes.
Have you ever read any court case? Try the Scottsboro Trial. About 5 people say that they witnesses a rape, but they were all liars? Are we to believe something that has been disproven, only because there are multiple witnesses?
Where's your second witness, then? I assume your position is "Godidit", but what witnesses do you have in favor of it? Who else was actually there to witness the beginning other than God, and if his account is so damn important then why have we not heard of him before?
We have every biologist in the world and many millions of pieces of evidence discovered AFTER Darwin. That why all biology depends upon evolution and believes it and understands it, with the exception of a handful of bible-besotted fools in AiG. If Darwin had not existed, Wallace would have published first, and the TofE would not have been delayed more than a month or two.
Unless it's a woman being raped in the city; shouldn't she have four witnesses? Or is that in God-3.0 (i.e. the Quran).
No, evolution is considered basic science, as it has been witnessed by millions of people, every time they need a new flu-shot. Not to mention that it can't become a theory without peer-review, which is many people trying the same tests and evaluations. If they succeed, it's a theory. And evolution IS a theory.
Darwin wasn't the only one, or even the first, to observe it. He was just the first to formulate a hypothesis. If he hadn't exist, it would have been one of the others, a couple of months later.
We have millions of independent witnesses, when it comes to evolution.
No, they don't dedicate their lives to things that have already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt (your doubt is not reasonable, dolt). They are busy working WITH it to make life better for humans and animals.
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.
