The debate shouldn't revolve around needing evidence for God, or for belivers needing to supply evidence for their beliefs. That's why we have faith. If we had evidence, God wouldn't have told us to have faith.
Until Scientists can prove the foundation of evolution through experiments, they have no business claiming evolution as a "Fact" within the scientific community.
42 comments
The debate shouldn't revolve around needing evidence for God, or for belivers needing to supply evidence for their beliefs. That's why we have faith. If we had evidence, God wouldn't have told us to have faith.
Exactly. So stop trying to bring faith into the science classroom, as science by nature is totally based around observable evidence. If you want to believe in faith-based '-isms' like creationism, geocentrism, or any such things, that's up to you.
The debate is really between Scientists and their own experiments trying to create life, write "new" genetic information in cells, and going against the laws of entropy. Simply put: If science has never shown life coming from non-life then science, itself, has undermined evolution.
There is no debate. Evolution happened, and possibly abiogenesis. Two separate theories by the way.
Until Scientists can prove the foundation of evolution through experiments, they have no business claiming evolution as a "Fact" within the scientific community.
They have, and it is.
This is the first time I've seen entropy implied as god's ultimate scientific law. It seems to me that this is the only scientific law that christians actually try to understand and employ, at least from their own twisted world view. But applying entropy to try and discredit evolution is old news. I can't really understand the rest of this, as it's basically a bunch of fundy hogwash.
"Until Scientists can prove the foundation of evolution through experiments, they have no business claiming evolution as a "Fact" within the scientific community."
Okay, let's try it.....aaaaaaaand....proven! Ta da!
"going against the laws of entropy"
Hey, look at this.
*writes 'Fuck you' on a piece of paper*
I produced new information. This is against the laws of entropy.
No, wait, maybe you're just stupid.
Until Scientists can prove the foundation of evolution through experiments, they have no business claiming evolution as a "Fact" within the scientific community.
Which they can. Just remember that evolution does not say anything about how life arose in the first place, just how it has evolved over time.
Faith on the other hand, it just wishful thinking and is useless for anything.
"The ministers, who preached at these revivals, were in earnest. They were zealous and sincere. They were not philosophers. To them science was the name of a vague dread -- a dangerous enemy. They did not know much, but they believed a great deal."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, from "Why I Am an Agnostic" (1896)
This is the fundamental problem with these debates, the athiest has to constantly prove every point, cite evidence and is absolutely forbidden from refusing to answer a question, while the believer is bound by none of these things. they believe it and thats all that fucking matters. This is hardly limited to fundies, although it is far more annoying when they apply this attitude to hard science instead of their usual realm of unprovable what-ifs.
Anyone know how to go against the laws of entropy? Some strongly worded patents there could be worth billions. Just imagine, free energy! Whoopee!
The thing that wrote this has five major errors in the last two sentences.
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
You can't break a law of physics, that's why they're called laws numbnuts. If the scientists are doing it, then it is not going against any laws of physics. And what that has to do with genetics, I have no idea. Neither do you but at least I know enough to realise it has nothing to do with genetics.
If we had evidence, God wouldn't have told us to have faith.
What evidence do you have that god told you to have faith? Or do you merely have faith that he told you to have faith?
"The debate shouldn't revolve around needing evidence for God, or for belivers needing to supply evidence for their beliefs."
Ah yes, the tried & tested method by fundies of switching the burden of proof onto others - the pathetic defence mechanism they have. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. YOU claim that this 'God' exists, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. We don't have to lift a finger. And we Atheists will only accept proof that's to OUR satisfaction - i.e. you fundies making this 'God' actually APPEAR in hard, solid physical form. And even if he did, it doesn't mean he has the RIGHT to be believed in, worshipped, or whatever (certainly because of his behaviour in the OT). Like I say, burden of proof & all that jazz. Troy Brooks take note.
"Until Scientists can prove the foundation of evolution through experiments, they have no business claiming evolution as a "Fact" within the scientific community."
They already HAVE. The mutations of the Common Cold virus (& thus it's incurability) is proof of Evolution. The fact we humans share at least 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees certainly proves the validity of Darwin's theories. That's enough to make Evolution a FACT.
And that's why you FAIL.
If we had evidence, God wouldn't have told us to have faith.
"If we had evidence, God wouldn't have told us to have faith."
"If science has never shown life coming from non-life then science, itself, has undermined evolution."
Wait, since when has evolution ANYTHING to do with the origin of life? I thought that was a completely different field of byology, namingly abiogenesys.
Paragraph 1: Very good, non-fundie Christianity. Quite commendable.
Paragraph 2: Fundie. Evolutionary theory doesn't explain how the first life-form got there at all. One could argue that a god put it there without contradicting the theory at all. The ToE only explains how life forms adapt to environmental changes over time.
Paragraph 3: They have. Numerous times. Unlike fundies, scientists don't ignore evidence that contradicts their previous conclusions.
If science has never shown life coming from non-life then science, itself, has undermined evolution.
No, that's called the "god of the gaps" fallacy: if you can't answer question X, then god did it. What does life coming from non-life have to do with the question of whether humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?
... scientists don't do much to 'prove evolution as fact' these days. Its not right to do the kids homework FOR them, and having them prove it with a few simple weeks of observation is good.
Or do you have a problem with us demonstrating it firsthand to people?
Of course you do. If its not a fairy tale how can you POSSIBLY believe it, right?
I am your god, and I like FSTDT better!! Don't believe me? To hell with you, I commanded you to have faith!
What the hell is wrong with these believers today? I can't even get a descent goat sacrifice anymore.
We've done it. On the other hand, you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Since you don't even know what your premise is, I feel no need to prove anything for people who wouldn't recognize proof if they saw 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.
