I am a trained scientist who is also a Christian, as such I can look at Darwin's Theory and respect his evidence and his arguments. The difference betwixt myself and many of the more Fundamentalist Darwinians is this. Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory! It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject.
75 comments
"Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory! It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject. "
Your myth is just that a myth! It has been totally discredited despite efforts of Fanatic Bibleinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject.
"I am a trained scientist (...)"
"Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory!"
I call "Bullshit!" on you, sir.
If you were even remotely well-trained in science, you wouldn't use the tired old "it's just a theory" canard, because you would know that scientists use the word "theory" to describe facts that have been thoroughly tested and not found wanting.
Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory! It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject.
If you want us to believe that you're a real scientist, maybe you should do a better job at pretending to be one.
There is no such thing as Darwinism or Darwinists. At least they exist as much as Newtownians or Einstienians.
Also you have no idea what a theory is.
You call yourself a scientist? What'd you graduate from, Bible University Diploma Mill #70393910?
"I am a trained scientist who is also a Christian, as such [...] Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory!"
Which is a bit like claiming to be a trained Christian theologian and talking about the "Holy Duality".
There are bones out there that belonged to creatures that were not apes, but weren't truly human either. What does the bible say about million-year-old near-human hominids?
No, the Nephilim argument doesn't fit. Wrong timescale.
@ Philbert: Nice reference.
Our English teacher read us Flowers for Algernon (the original short story) in class, these many years ago. Whole class of big rough council estate lads, all pretending they weren't crying.
"despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject."
Huh. This is about the farthest thing from the truth I could imagine. Michael Shermer, in an enormously negative review of Expelled , said it best:
"Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. At the World Summit on Evolution held in the Galapagos Islands during June 2005, for example, I witnessed a scientific theory rich in controversy and disputation... It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other "-ism" in science), as long as there is a way to test your challenge."
[I am a trained scientist...Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory!]
Bullshit. What kind of "scientist" are you, exactly?
"I am a trained scientist who is also a Christian, as such I can look at Darwin's Theory and respect his evidence and his arguments."
[...]
"Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory! It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject."
You're obviously a liar too.
"The difference betwixt myself and many of the more Fundamentalist Darwinians is this."
Who the hell uses "Betwixt"?
"Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory!"
As a scientist, you of all people should know the definition of theory.
He said he's a trained scientist, therefore he IS one!
In fact, if the theory vs. hypothesis business wasn't enough for us to see through his "I'm a real scientist, honest" façade, the fact that he goes on to use the second law of thermodynamics in support of creationism should be a dead giveaway. (Though the real laugh comes when creationists try to use the *first* law of thermodynamics in support of their arguments. Yes, I've seen this happen. Just think about it for a second...)
Fundamentalist Darwinians
Nobody who is for real would refer to themselves as a "scientist" unless they were addressing young children.
Next time you try to imitate someone why not read or listen to the words of that someone.
@Moondog: "Calling someone "a Darwinist" or "a Darwinian" is incorrect, and shows you have no clue."
Dawkins describes himself as a "passionate Darwinian" in A Devil's Chaplain .
"As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature."
So which, out of you and Dawkins, is lacking in clue? ;-)
If you were a scientist, you would know the true meaning of the word theory
Gravity is just a theory. Atoms are just a theory. Germs are just a theory.
Everyone else here has already debunked your claim to be a “trained scientist”, so I will skip it.
It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject.
But if you find some news article about some discussion between biologists over details of the ToE you will spin it into “See, even the Fanatic Darwinians [sic] cannot agree about evolution, therefore it is obviously completely false and this proves that goddidit!!!1!!eleven!!!”.
There is no winning with you guys.
not trained enough it seems.
What is the definition of theory in science ?
" a well tested explanation for observed facts"
1) Using words like "betwixt" do not improve your image.
“I am a trained scientist who is also a Christian,”
“The difference betwixt myself and many of the more Fundamentalist Darwinians is this. Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory”
"It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject.”
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.
