Atheists: Is evolutionary theory concerning the origins of a man really science?
26 comments
If only information like this were available somewhere, possibly in electronic format.
Round-up resistant weeds, drug resistant viruses
Oh, no. He not only killed paleontology, but also archeology, anthropology, physics, astronomy, history and our entire legal system.
Atheists: Is evolutionary theory concerning the origins of a man really science?
Evolutionary theory does not concern itself with origins, but rather what happened afterwards.
It seems to me that the fossil record is not favorable for scientists and since real science requires firsthand observation... Well, we certainly haven't obesrved this accidental transformation, did we?
Observation does not mean seeing something happen right in front of your eyes. Evolution does not happen by "Accidental transformation" . And the fossil record alone is proof of evolution by common descent.
Shamgaur, have you ever seen yourself while asleep? What? No, your eyes were closed at the time?
Gasp! That means you've never slept! How do you do it?
We have firsthand observation of the evidence. Like fossils. By your logic, I guess creation can be dismissed for the same reason, since nobody observed it as it was occurring either.
If you came home and found your house a pile of ash, I bet you would surmise it must have burned even if nobody actually witnessed the flames. Same kind of thing with evolution, no need to actually see the evolving as it takes place, the evidence that it occurred is sufficient.
Well, we certainly haven't obesrved this accidental transformation, did we?
Forensics experts rarely, if ever, see a crime being committed. However, they reconstruct the events of the crime by examining evidence and using deductive reasoning. Sound familiar, dips***?
*Le gasp!*
Of course! However had I missed that the fossil record does, in fact, show every present-day species appearing at once...out of nowhere!?!
I mean, the fossils are so well preserved after just 6000 years, after all.
</sarcasm>
Then again, since we certainly haven't observed a supreme being creating the universe first hand, it can't possibly have ever happened. Whoops.
"real science requires firsthand observation"
No, not really. Conclusions need to be drawn from the observations, afterall.
Creationists: Is the Intelligent Design Theory concerning the origins of man really science?
It seems to me that the biblical record is not favorable for Creationists and real I.D requires first hand observation. Well, we certainly haven't observed this biblical creation, did we?
FIXED!
"Atheists: Is evolutionary theory concerning the origins of a man really science?"
Of course.
"It seems to me that the fossil record is not favorable for scientists and since real science requires firsthand observation..."
What's the problem with the fossil record?
By the way, "real" science doesn't require direct observation. We've yet to directly observe black holes but we know they exist and know quite a bit about their workings.
"Well, we certainly haven't obesrved this accidental transformation, did we?"
Uh, yes. It's in the fossil record. Or was that the problem you were speaking of? If that's the case the problem is for you, not us.
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.
