Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.
27 comments
Throughout history? Creation "science" is brand spanking new. Hell, evolutionary science isn't even that old in the grand scheme of things.
Cretin "science" is not fucking possible. It doesn't matter what else you want to throw at it, there is no evidence to suggest the earth is 6000 years old. If fact, it is a certainty that it is MUCH older. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood. There is no evidence for a god who makes planets from scratch, and makes people out of dust. It is not possible that the bible HASN'T been plagerized from earlier and concurrent myths and beliefs, and that it wasn't butchered by church and royalty for thousands of years. No part of Creation stands up to any kind of reality. So it matters not that it isn't testable, repeatable, observable; it's impossible, fantastical, and detestable. An unbelievable tale that has managed to hold on to mankind like a pitbull.
I find it amusing that no matter how many times these idiots say that no part of evolutionary biology is testable or observable or repeatable, they never manage to support that claim. It's even better when they give props to their own convictions and again, fail to support it even with the simplest of evidence. Congratulations Mr Sampson! You're a moron.
"Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth."Well, that is largely true, though to say "throughout history" is an overstatement as for most of human history there has been no science nor any real opposition to some form of creationism.
"As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary 'Science.'"
Huh? That makes no sense.
Your use of quotation marks is incorrect as it is creation "science" which is, at it's very best, dubious science.
"One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate."
Yes, actually one can. I deny your ridiculous assertion and further claim that it is creationism which is based on unjustifiable assumptions and survives only by ignoring hard evidence.
Let´s put it this way. The Bible says things that, just a brief superficial glance, will reveal improbable. So, it deals with symbols and metaphores but it irks some fundie people because they believe in the inerracy of the Bible. Problem, is it in the BOOK or rather IN THE IDIOTS WHO ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT?
Making assumptions and being untestable are two different things. Assumptions can be tested if and when new data becomes available; and furthermore, the new data needed to test the assumptions can be specified in advance. If assumptions are contradicted by new data, they're thrown out and the theory changes. A theory involving assumptions is still testable.never be obtained. Once you throw out the law of cause and effect and begin claiming something happened by magic, it's no longer testable by any rational means short of God appearing on the 6:00 News and saying "yep, I did that".
Evolution makes predictions that are testable. Most of those predictions have been confirmed, and the rest are yet to be resolved. None have been shown to be false.
"Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth."
"One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate"
Uh, you can get reproductive isolation in about a week with a bunch of fruit flies and 2 different sugars. D. melanogaster has a complete life cycle of, like, days, so experiments can and have been done on the little guys to see how environmental pressures can create two voluntarily segregated "species".
Creation 'Science' my ASS. It is nothing but fiction dreamed up by fundy creationists like Kent Hovind & Ken Ham, along with their allies in organizations like 'Focus on the Family'(?), the mis-named 'Family Research Council' and equally mis-named 'American Family Association'.
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.
