Atheistic origin science is false. It cannot account for the life forms that exist. Thus, its opposite, theistic origin science is true.
45 comments
You're wrong, and therefore any crazy made-up fairy tale I want to propose must be the only other solution.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
"The concept, from both sides of the "debate," that science and religion are mutually exclusive and one cannot believe in both."
"One of the most common false dilemmas encountered in modern discourse, especially in the United States, is that if there is any flaw at all in the theories of evolution, then creation science is the only other possible truth. (Not even Christians accepting theistic evolution is acceptable.)"
*sigh* Okay, let's go over this again.
The fact that you got Ds in Science class does NOT mean that evolution is false, it means you're a shitty scholar. My 14-year-old daughter has a better grasp on evolution- and logical deduction- than you.
There are many suggestions about the creation of the universe and life that does not include either evolution or god. Indeed, if tomorrow the whole theory of evolution through natural selection were proved wrong (almost impossible, but let us consider it), it still does NOT prove one thing about god.
The absence of evolution does not prove god.
Well this fails on at least three levels:
1. Science of any kind is neither atheistic nor theistic. It might overlap with claims made, but it has no strong feelings one way or the other.
2. Science reagrding abiogenesis can account for the life forms that exist, that's the whole point of it.
3. Even if it were proven that all current scientific understanding of the origin of life was complete bollocks, this wouldn't magically make creationism correct.
Because one doesn't have all the details of every last question in the origin of life does not mean that a magical, completely unproven, fervently wish for, story is true.
I would just love to know. What is it with fundies & their hard-on for a literal interpretation of the early Genesis stories? This hatred of science & Evolution is ridiculous. I ask this because TONS of deeply religious...perhaps really conservative...Bible-loving, Church-going people are perfectly okay with Evolution, Science, etc. A belief in Evolution does not hurt one's spiritual faith one iota! Just ask the guys in the Vatican!
What you are proposing is known as a false dichotomy. It's possible there is a third alternative that we don't know about yet.
Besides, there are a lot of things that science couldn't account for in the past that it can account for now. The need for your fairy tale keeps getting less and less.
"Atheistic origin science is false. It cannot account for the life forms that exist."
And Cre(a)ti(o)nism [i]can[/i]...?!
image
Oh no more, please Mr. Wilde, I am bereft of ribs! [/Doug Piranha-levels of sarcasm]
"Thus, its opposite, theistic origin science is true."
Tell it to the judge , ShavedByGraceThruFilth*. A Conservative Christian legally debunked the Religious Reich's last, best hope for their educational agenda, a.k.a. religious indoctrination:
image
Evolution - Reality - is now enshrined in Constitutional Law, no less, and there's less than fuck all you Cretinists can do about it.
*- Ritualistically, a la Dr. Evil? X3
(SpukiKitty)
My best guess is this:
If the Genesis legend (ignoring for the moment that there are 2 of those) isn't literally and completely true , then there was no literal Adam and Eve; therefore, no Original Sin; therefore, no need for salvation; therefore, Jesus was martyred for absolutely nothing, making Christianity (and, by extension, a fundy's whole life) utterly pointless.
@Da Rat Bastid:
There is a formal bit of theology that goes something like that.
They set up an allegory between Adam the first man who started sin and death, and Jesus the last man who conquered sin and deat.
If evolution is true, then death existed millions of years before Adam. With Adam missing from this Adam-Jesus allegory, the whole theological equasion breaks down, Jesus death on the cross acomplishes nothing, and christinaity becomes irrellevent, and the fundies whole life is wasted meaninglessness.
So evolution can't be true.
@SpukiKitty :
I would just love to know. What is it with fundies & their hard-on for a literal interpretation of the early Genesis stories?
Because without a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you don't get that all men are evil because Adam & Eve ate from the tree, so then all humans are tainted with that sin so we need "saved" by Jesus. Without the Adam & Eve story, it's hard to make the case that we're all worthless sinners in need of saving.
That, and the fact that the Adam & Eve eating fruit story gives them an excuse for misogyny, not to mention believing the creation myth makes them feel that they're special because God created the entire universe just for them.
I get it.
That said, non-literalists can just as easily state that, Adam & Eve are a metaphor of the human species, the tree represents full human sapience & the understanding of right/wrong & good/evil (that humanity chose wrong/evil & thus humanity "fell"). Then, Jesus would alleviate the impact of humanity having a flawed nature.
At least that's how I interpreted it.
But I understand your points. Since metaphor is alien to fundies, my take on the tale would be mere gobbledygook.
I think the main thing is, fundies just like to control. Control & Power.
There's certainly "non-biblical origin science", but there's no such thing as "atheistic origin science". There's a naturalistic explanation for how things originated, just as there are naturalistic explanations for why things fall when you drop them and why gasoline burns. None of these preclude the existence of God. Believing in God doesn't require believing that He does every little thing personally like some cosmic puppeteer.
Atheistic origin science is false. It cannot account for the life forms that exist. Thus, its opposite, theistic origin science is true.
Ever heard of biology? Our scientific understanding of the origins of life may not be perfect, heck, it may NEVER be perfect, but it's still a lot better than the "theistic scientific method" of goddidit-next-goddidit-next.
Also, the falsehood of a premise does not automatically make its opposite true.
This stuff in my bowl isn't ice cream, so it must be dogshit. I'm also lying about having a bowl.
- ServedByGraceThruTheDriveThru
@Mister Spak
"@Da Rat Bastid:
There is a formal bit of theology that goes something like that.
They set up an allegory between Adam the first man who started sin and death, and Jesus the last man who conquered sin and deat.
If evolution is true, then death existed millions of years before Adam. With Adam missing from this Adam-Jesus allegory, the whole theological equasion breaks down, Jesus death on the cross acomplishes nothing, and christinaity becomes irrellevent, and the fundies whole life is wasted meaninglessness.
So evolution can't be true."
Therefore the Church of England acknowledges that much of the Bible is purely fable & metaphor, ergo (in their Westminster Abbey)...:
image
When "On the Origin of Species" was first published, the C-of-E embraced this new thinking with open arms. Why can't you , fundies? The C-of-E still exists to this day.
The phrase "the yolk of an egg is white" is false; thus its opposite, "the yolk of an egg are white" must be true.
It's simple logic, isn't it?
Plus @NonProphet : sad to say this guy is the real-deal head-up-his-arse Bible-bashing science-denying moron the quote paints him to be. When challenged on his bullshit evasions and contradictory non-sequiturs, all he had left in his arsenal was "You will die and then you will agree with me on the existence of God."
There is no theistic origin science. Next question, please.
Besides, you are not true just cause someone else is false; you can both be false, and a third, or fourth or sixth option might be true.
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.
