Yep. When dealing with some evolutionist fanatics, especially the strongly anti-Christian faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch. If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer's credentials. Then they make some sneering comment referring to your belief in a flat Earth.
39 comments
Nah, "The Sun rises in the East" is purely a matter of definition. No proof really needed there. Just a reference point.
And as for things that actually do require proof: Some things look obvious that really aren't.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
How is that possible unless the world is flat?
Well, it's OBVIOUS that there's a celestial sphere, isn't it? All the stars never move in relation to each other, so it must be a sphere with pinpricks of light circling around the earth. That's the obvious explanation for why the sky looks the way it does at night.
... you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch.
Well, duh. Yeah. If you're telling the truth, backing it up with peer-reviewed science should only take a few extra minutes. It's only difficult if you're trying to sling BS and don't like getting caught at it. How come creationists don't document their work? Duane Gish claimed during a debate that a human protein sequence was closer to a bullfrog's than a chimp's. When he was repeatedly challenged over the years to provide a source for this claim, he has always hemmed and hawed. He still hasn't provided proof, and that was a couple of decades ago. Another creationist, Walter Brown said the rattlesnake's closest biochemical relative was the human. His source? His kid's school science project, which didn't include any other primates besides the human.
What's "obvious" is a matter of opinion. One of the favorite tricks of charlatans is to present some baloney, claim it's "obvious", then stifle criticism by implying that anyone who doesn't believe it must be too stupid to see how "obvious" it is. If it's "obvious", it should be easy to prove with documented evidence.
If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer's credentials.
Its called science. Try to keep up.
If you still think the Earth is flat, then yeah, I can understand why anyone who argues against you wants you to back up any claim. Quite frankly, I question anything a person says if they can't even understand basic physics (like gravity).
Aw, you have to support your assertions. Diddums.
Jesus, and Freepers actually call liberals whiny?!
And having to prove outlandish assertions before being taken seriously is bad... why?
By the way, something might seem obvious and could still be wrong. A few hundred years ago, you could say that heavy objects fall faster than light objects and you wouldn't need to prove it. But if scientists such as Galileo didn't challenge that and demand proof or data, or do experiments themselves, then our understanding of physics would be all messed up. See how this works?
Don't feel bad, I do it with everybody, because that's the way to check reality. If I didn't, I'd have to believe that Aliens abduct us, that snakes speak, that Atlantis was a real location and that it will rise again and conquer the world..........
Yes, thats right. The best definition of the modus operandi of science.
Oh, and I hope it was "...all evolution fanatics" and not "..just some evolution fanatics".
"...you are expect to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious....."
Congratulations, you get it!
Scientists want proof?
OH NOEZ!1
Such is the nature of science: every claim no matter how obvious, trivial, or elemental, must be proven with empirical evidence. It's the standard science holds itself to, and it's the standard science is holding religion to. You are basically saying that religion can not stand up to the standards of science, so therefore religion should never be held to the standards of science; religion should just be given a mullian on proof.
That's one of the reason that scientific thinkers and fundies clash so often: they are not two sides of the same argument, they are two sides of completely different arguments.
I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of Christians who have no problem accepting evolution as a fact, along with a billions-of-years-old universe.
"Yep. When dealing with some fundie fanatics, especially the strongly anti-evolution faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch. If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer's credentials. Then they make some sneering comment referring to your worship of Satan."
fixed...
Just as those adults who believe in imaginary friends must expect some sneering comments, those who, against all evidence, hold that the world is falt must expect some ridicule.
When dealing with some evolutionist fanatics, especially the strongly anti-Christian faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch.
Yup. You finally got 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.
