Through the centuries, "mainstream science" has changed its tune over and over. So many of the "proofs" for evolutionary theory have been found inconclusive, and the evidence (when viewed objectively) can point both to evolution and creation. The question is, which is more likely? I believe in order for all creatures to have evolved first from non-life into life, and then from one simple creature into millions of complex ones, seems miraculous. And then we're back in God's territory, aren't we?
19 comments
"Though the centuries 'mainstream science' has changed its tune over and over."
No shit Sherlock, that's what science does. As new and better evidence becomes available old theories (no the word theory doesn't mean what you think it means) are revised, improved and sometimes replaced.
"So many of the 'proofs' for evolutionary theory have been found inconclusive."
Really? Examples?
"...the evidence (when viewed objectively) can point to both evolution and creation."
Bullshit, the evidence supports evolution and only evolution. Moreover the evidence reduces Genesis to a childish fairytale.
"And then we're back in God's territory, aren't we?"
No, shit-for-brains, we're not. The fact that you find stochastic processes miraculous has absolutely nothing to do with wood sprites or talking snakes.
You're right, it only 'seems' miraculous. Actually, there is a system in play here, and most people with a nominal education and average intelligence understand this.
It's called a thriving ecosystem.
Technical foul, on the defensive, argument from incredulity, five yards, repeat tenth grade.
Over the centuries, fundies keep believing the same ancient myths.
So many of the "proofs" of theism are not even attempted proofs, just wild claims, and the evidence points only to the absurdity of religion. The question is, why do people believe nonsense so consistently? I believe in order for religion to have this destructive effect on intelligence, it mus have had a survival value in the past. And then we're back in sciences territory, aren't we?
Fixed.
"Mainstream science" as we know it is only a recent development. I'd say the earliest you could claim science was "mainstream" was the 1800s.
Nothing points to creation. You can't view scientific evidence and say "GODDIDIT," because guess what, it's not scientific anymore. And once again, they include abiogenesis in evolutionary theory.
I dunno about you guys, but I think the fact that my heart is beating, right now, in just the right rhythm so I stay alive, seems pretty miraculous. But does that mean my heart beating is in God's territory? And in that case, why would he be making it beat when I doubt him and his supposed book?
The reason why mainstream science has "changed its tune" so many times is that, as opposed to creationists, scientists are actually looking actively for the best possible explanation for the observed evidence.
Now, do us all a favour and never speak again.
Wow...I googled my name and you pooped up (yes, for you it's 'pooped')...You're like my complete opposite. Christian freak, who doesn't believe in COMPLETELY supported evolution. FYI the bible is a fairy tale, full of fables to construct morality as a whole....it's not even a good time reference other than the fact they were eating moldy bread and tripping out.
anyway YOU STOLE MY NAME!!!! and it makes me look bad.
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.