image
Transcript:
Which one are you going to trust?
Holy Bible? “It is written” Matt. 4:4
Or Evolution BELIEF? “It is written and rewritten and rewritten and Rewritten and…”
84 comments
You really didn't think the entire theory would be discovered and explained instanteously, did you? These things take time and revision. In light of new evidence, theories can be altered or even done away with altogether, and that's by no means a bad thing. We actually care about learning the natural order of things, unlike some people who believe a book of baseless tales that calls itself the truth despite the lack of evidence. You fail science forever.
Also, evolution is not a "belief".
"Certitude" doesn't always signify "correctness".
I'm guessing the concern here is that the creationists cannot bear the idea that they'll die (no, they don't necessarily believe in a pre-millenial rapture) without any chance of getting an absolute, complete understanding of how everything came to be, and what good and evil are. If it were impossible, the cosmos itself has made it impossible for them to do everything utterly perfectly. Hence, they can't stand the idea that the explanation for life INTENDS to be constantly revised. If it's revised after one's death, then that one was utterly wrong. Primary flaw: belief that everything must be understand in an all-or-nothing context.
Which are you going to trust?
(The Bible)
OR
(The Theory of Evolution)
I see no difference. One is continually rewritten, and the other is continually reinterpreted. Seriously....this has got to be on of the stupidest things I've seen. Of course you go with the one that has been rewritten...as it is clearly the one more likely to have been adjusted to suit current scientific observation.
Evolution is constantly updated because it is continuously researched and as new facts, theories and evidence are discovered they are made known to the public.
The bible stays the same because you stubborn fucks refuse to accept that anything changes in this world.
I'll take the latter, thank you. There's a reason it's rewritten: it's based on the best available facts, and we get new facts all the time to make it better. It's not like it's ever been completely revised either (not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what the facts ask for, just that it says something about the foundation the theory started with). For a group of scientists, you guys REALLY don't understand how science works.
I rlly should have submitted one of these but didn't know how to send pictures. There's one that says:
"We know the Bible is true because...
A. Scientists say so!
It's D. God Says So!
That's right! The Bible is true no matter what men say!"
(meanwhile, over at the AiG HQ...)
Bob: "Hey, Ken, what day is it today?"this always shows the current date."same date!"after I showed them where the bible said they were wrong!"
Contrary to the creationists claims, the bible has been rewritten and revised more times than the theory of evolution has been corrected and made more accurate. But personally, I'll take the one with supporting evidence.
I think a book that is constantly revised as new information is found is far more reliable than one that hasn't been updated in 2000 years.
I don't get how Christians think that if an idea stays the same over a long period of time, it must be true, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hell, even science books are constantly updated as new information is learned. If they weren't, we'd still be treating sick people with leeches and boring holes in their skulls, not to mention thinking the earth is flat and the stars are tiny little lights about 1000 feet up in the air or so.
Well of course when the bible says the earth is flat, people believed it 100% back then.
Now they say it is just symbolic, or "re translate" it to say otherwise.
So, as you were saying..which book always stays the same?
Explain the different version of the various books of the Bible, some which contain entire sections that aren't present in the current form and others that contradict what you have now.
Aside from that, I think I'd trust the one that has been tested, retested and tested again and then updated to provide me with the most current and widely accepted version. Your book hasn't been updated in 2,000 years, and that's for the most recent part of it. We wont even talk about the last time the OT was updated...
Which one do you trust?
2. Theory of Evolution
So, which one do I trust more? I think I stay with 2
;)
Wait, when scientists find evidence that doesn't fit perfectly with theory they alter the theory? How dare they!
Much better to stick doggedly to yor theories even after they have been falsified.
That's like asking someone to perform 17th century medicine on you.
"But they didn't have to change it!"
They did. And it's better. Get the fuck over it.
In another words, which would you choose - static Dogma you are not allowed to question or self-correcting ideas that update as new evidence is discovered.
It's a false dichotomy really; it's not like you "have" to believe in either. If there was a god, I seriously doubt she would give a shit what people thought about the origins or development of life on Earth.
Lessee... should I believe that there is a "firmament" in the sky with floodgates that open up to allow rain to fall? Should I believe in a flat earth with a "dome" of a sky that the sun, moon, and stars move through? Should I believe in a worldwide flood, a guy who collected at least two of every animal & insect on the entire planet and put them on a 300 foot-long wooden boat he built himself, then floated for several months until the waters just "receded" somewhere? Should I believe that snakes can talk? Should I believe that a guy with magical powers who was his own father allowed himself to be executed, then came back to life three days later and magically flew up into the sky?
It is written and has been unchanged for thousands of years (if you can believe that), so it must be true.
Of course, don't forget that the Catholic bible has books in it that Protestant bibles don't, but they're not really Christians anyway.
Well, yeah, I'll pick the new and improved biology text book over the fallible badly written unedited bible. I mean there are parts in that book where like, 50 sentences start with And. And is a conjunction, it's meant to tie two sentences together, not start sentences with it.
Lets see if I can fix.
Holy Bible - written, translated, rewritten, translated, rewritten, translated, rewritten, rewritten - with mistakes - but given as word of God to blindly follow. Not allowed to question or acknowledge mistakes and rewrites.
Evolution SCIENCE (not a belief) - written, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, etc.
I've seen the same argument applied in favour of homoeopathy. I.e. that conventional medicine is obviously inferior because new medicines, treatments and diagnostic and surgical techniques come out all the time, quite often supplanting earlier ones, while homoeopaths are still pushing the same overpriced bottled water they've done for the last 200 years.
I guess when you've not come up with a single new idea in that long, "we've always done it this way" is pretty much the only argument left.
"IT IS WRITTEN"
As are humans evolving from apes, and the universe coming into being from a cataclysmic cosmic event (Big Bang) in "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and "A Brief History of Time" by Prof. Stephen Hawking, respectively.
So according to your own logic, Answers in Genesis, the above are fact . Especially so in Richard Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution". What he says therein is fact. Because you say so.
So as IT IS WRITTEN.
After all, anyone can go into their wardrobe and emerge out the other side and emerge into another world, where you'd meet a talking lion. As IT IS WRITTEN in CS Lewis's "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe".
'IT IS WRITTEN' says the Bible. We Atheists have a saying: Don't believe everything you read.
To be so ignorant of the history of what you claim to be the centerpiece of your philosophy and world outlook ... that is wilfull ignorance indeed!!
Any way we can send this guy a copy of Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why?"
Wow. I mean, are you really that stupid? Should I even begin?
No, no you're right. A bunch of ancient people 2000 years ago just whipped up the KJV, a perfect book with modern-day English, modern-day paper and made in a modern-day printing factory. God dropped all this technology down from heaven and everything, the bibles even had a bar code printed on the back.
Astute observation, and the exact reason that science works better than religion when it comes to practical applications.
I will trust the one that has been tested and tested and tested, not the one that is never allowed to be questioned.
If it has never been rewritten, then what are all these different versions? KJV is not 2000 years old, it's precisely 399 years old (according to Wikipeida).
Evolution. Rewritten & rewritten...
So? New evidence is always found, thus Darwin's original theory is contantly updated to take into account said evidence which reinforces the facts about Evolution.
Facts being the operative word.
The Bible. 'It is written'. O RLY?:
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Scriptures/index.htm
And that's just the English versions. The KJV was edited. By a homosexual no less.
Your call, fundies.
I'm going to trust the book on the right because it is rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten, which means it is relavant to our present time, unlike that strange book with the cross on it.
Which value of pi are you going to trust?
The bible's?
Or science's?22/7 355/113 103993/33102
Researchers and writers of scientific textbooks know when to suck it up when their first assumptions don't match the data.
But some fundies don't know how to take their ideological lumps and bruises like a man!
I prefer the one that's been proven over the one that's been thoroughly refuted by legions of historians and scholars, and tells you that selling your daughter as a sex slave and beating slaves to death is permissible, but homosexuality is an abomination(which has also been refuted).
Which one are you going to trust?
Evolution: it is revised, and improved, and revised...
OR...
Bible: "It is written" but then mistranslated and parts get stuck in from time to time even though they shouldn't be and ...
Consider how much the world has changed in 2000 years and then consider how a book that has not changed one iota in 2000 years can possibly be accurate.
Thinking people continue to grow mentally, that's why theories are revisited and opinions revised as new evidence comes to light. Clinging to a book that has remained constant for two millennia is not much different from a fully grown man trying to fit into the first set of baby clothes he ever wore.
Neither, because the only person who would write a book called "Evolution BELIEF" is some brain-dead fundie who thought he was clever, just like the only person who would write a book like the Bible is an ignorant sheep herder.
I will trust the one that yields tangible, real world benefits for humanity.
And the winner is...naw, you'd never believe it
What car would you rather drive? A Ford Model T built after the original plans and with the original materials or a modern car, built with all the engineering methods and new materials we developed in the last 100 years?
What computer would you rather use? A Babbage analytical engine or a modern multi-processor PC?
What phone would you rather use? An old wall-mounted phone where the connections have to be made by a human switch-board operator or a modern “smart phone”?
You see where I am going with this?
In other words, Left is Black, Purple is East, and Down is a Itsy Bitsy Teeniee Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. *brainfart*
And when it comes to you needing modern medicine, like open-heart surgery, thoracic surgery, and neuro-surgery, which book do you want your doctors to trust? The one that hasn't been updated in 2000 years, right?
No pain killers, antibiotics, or anesthesia for you, that's all just evil sciencey medicine that's been written, and rewritten, and rewritten.
Hypocrites like you will be the first one to whine about not getting the latest medical procedures, I'm sure of it.
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.
