Tuesday, October 25, 2005


Reality Of Evolution #1

The dilemma of the evolutionist as I've come to understand is thus:

They are unable to prove evolution. No matter where they go (billions spent in space)or what experiments and studies they perform they cannot duplicate what they claim to be fact. They fail to demonstrate the object of their faith.

Neither can they disprove God. No matter where they go (billions spent in space) or what experiments and studies they perform they cannot dispel what they claim is false. They fail to eliminate the object of my faith.

So they will continue. Unhappilly-even resentful of the fact that those of us who have faith in the creator don't have to go day in and day out in pursuit of proof. They will not stop their meaningless search for the missing link. They will continue to seek but they will not find because that "link" for which they long is just that-missing. They will continue in the attempt to remove God from public view. Yet they will fail to prevent Him from being known to anyone who seeks Him.

They will continue in their quest for the answer until they finally realize that Christ is the answer. If they never come to that point they will die never having known the answer.

D. Elrod, you can't just keep claiming there's no proof for evolution, without actually knowing something about the subject. There is incredible evidence coming from nearly every scientific discipline every day.

Also, we are finding "missing links" all the time. That includes human ancestors, but also things like whale fossils with tiny, useless hind legs. What were they for, if they weren't intermediate forms of a land mammal evolving over millions of years to live in the sea?

Addressing your other point, nobody I knows wants to disprove God. Many scientists are believers in God, many just don't really think about it much.

I'm not threatened by your faith, so why are you so threatened by evolution? I mean, you're in serious denial here.

I think you need to read "Finding Darwin's God." Check out the reviews at Amazon.

You can't keep saying you have "overwhelming" evidence for evolution when you CANNOT show it as fact.
Remember, I'm not the one seeking out evolutionists to refute-you came here. Who's acting threatened?
Because someone is religious and has a religious title does not neccessarily mean that they have or have ever had a personal relationship with God.
Every bit of "evolution evidence" can easily be explained by creation.
Anon, check out Darwinian Fundamentalism.
Your high school science teacher has some explaining to do... you cannot equate the scientific method with belief... what makes you so sure you picked the right religion? the right god? Who cares- when you die you'll be eaten by worms like the rest of us. Why is it so hard to conceive of not being alive (before conception/after death).. this is the salvation most religions give people... the religious confuse the term "soul" with "personality" or "memory". Neurologists know that these can be affected by disease states- so if these ideas are excluded- a belief in an "immortal soul" is a belief in an entity who can't remember what it was, and won't have the personality of its previous incarnation.. so what is the point?
Is that Anon #1 or #2? Your post is a prime example of "proffessing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

The simple truth is much easier to place your faith in than an over-complicated myth which is designed to confuse and overwhelm those who choose to let others do their thinking for them.

Why are you afraid of the notion of an all-poerful creator, Anon?

Why do you want to reamain "anonymous", anyway?
-The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject-

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)


Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way.

Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?