Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH. The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven.....
Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing. (just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.) In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.
The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created. What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it. S
36 comments
@supersport
Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH. The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven..... just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.
Uh, they don't move them to new locations because it usually ends badly. As in the habitat has no means of controlling the population and damage of the animal. Idiot.
What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it.
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the most deluded sack of shit of all?
"Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH."It is not a religion. From dictionary.com:
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I can see how definition #4 could confuse those only versed in primitive levels of thought. While that definition could be true of "religion," that meaning of the word has nothing to do with religions which are related to the first 3 definitions.
Evolution does not require faith, it requires evidence.
"The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven....."
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Both mutations and natural selection are well documented; tested and proven.
"Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing."
Scientists have demostrated natural selection over and over for 100+ years.
"(just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.)"
Phenotypes is a mighty big word for such a small thought. Well-adapted species dropped into alien environments may no be able to thrive in that new environment. All your experiment would show is that evolution takes longer than 1 generation.
I think refusal to read and understand the evidence is "chicken," superdork.
"In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried."
What you know of scientific experiments is very little.
"Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link."
Of course you ARE wrong about this.
This is a good site. Satart here:
http://www.natcenscied.org/link.asp?category=1
"The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created."
The ToE is based on evidence collected from the field and from labratory experiments, carefully considered and correlated. I have no particular desire to be created or not created, I want to know the facts.
"What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it. S"
In my very best 7 year-old voice, I answer, "I know you are, but what am I?
"Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing. (just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.)"
Rules for Arguing Like a Fundie #432:
IT'S OBSERVED ALL THE TIME.What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious.
^ The immense irony of such quotes never fails to make my mind buckle.
"Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to
I am afraid that you are the one with the Sesame Street-style make-believe approach. Also, all the fairytales seem to be coming from your side of the evolution/creationism argument. (God snapping the divine fingers six times over the course of six days and then needs to rest = fairytale.)
(just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.)
The fact is, your theory is based on sheer, unquestioning acceptance of statements in a book that uses the "It's true because I said so" approach. What you have is not faith; it's blind faith Sesame Street-style stories compiled for the gullible.
D'you hear me, scientists? Y'all're too chicken to scatter animals far and wide just to observe what will happen to their looks! Y'all are too scared about disrupting natural ecosystems by introducing new species! A real man would make sure to take lots of notes about the way zebra mussels are taking over Tennessee's rivers! Bawk bawk bawk!
Feh. I attempted to educate this fuckwad when he showed up at Internet Infidels. It quickly became appearant that he has all the reading comprehension of a block of wood, as he would chop up people's posts to respond to, fail to actually respond (or, indeed, understand their point), and then, write another post making the original assertion all over again.
"In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link."
<i>In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.</i>
Random mutation requires blind faith? Try telling that to the parents of a child born with trisomy 13.
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.
