Jenny, seriously, if I believed for a minute that you would listen and understand, I'd be glad to go over the mountain of evidence we have for evolution with you, or to point you into some of the books that sum it up for laypersons. When I see you write that there's "no evidence", it makes me shudder at the memories of the LONG HOURS I have spent, trying to remember a fraction of what was put before us to digest, when I was getting my major in bio and my minor in chem, and it makes me wonder if you are capable of letting go of your opinion to look at the facts. I don't ask you to spend the hours I spent...
And I mean hooooooooooooooooooooooooours!...
But I do ask you to not just wave your hand in the air, blowing off 150 years of scientific research as if it's "just another opinion", as if any ol' opinion will do. That's something I'd expect Scarlett O'Hara to say, "oh, fiddle-dee-dee!", not a rational modern woman.
We know what happened in the past because there are methods we devise for testing what happened in the past, and for checking for errors by using several methods that would arrive at different results if they were not both accurate. It's why the "how you got your results" is so important, and it's what keeps "any ol' opinion" from being equal!
I am truly, truly baffled to watch you sit there proudly and defiantly typing "well my opinion is as good as yours!" WHEN YOUR OPINION DEFIES 99.99999% of the experts who actually work in that field of study!
No one would think a person who said "My opinion about my health is just as good as my doctor's!" or "My ideas about tax law are just as good as my Tax Attorney's!" was anything but delusional.
And yet that's exactly what you're doing.
What THE FUCK makes people think that the scientific community, the top experts on earth, is any different, that they can just dismiss them because they don't like the findings?
"I'm sorry, Mister Harvard Law School Attorney, I can't accept that answer, even though 99.9999% of lawyers all tell me that's what the law says. There's one lawyer, over in Arizona, who tells me that I'm just fine, so screw you pal, I'm not really going to jail no matter what you say!!!" *handwave*
And I mean hooooooooooooooooooooooooours!...
But I do ask you to not just wave your hand in the air, blowing off 150 years of scientific research as if it's "just another opinion", as if any ol' opinion will do. That's something I'd expect Scarlett O'Hara to say, "oh, fiddle-dee-dee!", not a rational modern woman.
We know what happened in the past because there are methods we devise for testing what happened in the past, and for checking for errors by using several methods that would arrive at different results if they were not both accurate. It's why the "how you got your results" is so important, and it's what keeps "any ol' opinion" from being equal!
I am truly, truly baffled to watch you sit there proudly and defiantly typing "well my opinion is as good as yours!" WHEN YOUR OPINION DEFIES 99.99999% of the experts who actually work in that field of study!
No one would think a person who said "My opinion about my health is just as good as my doctor's!" or "My ideas about tax law are just as good as my Tax Attorney's!" was anything but delusional.
And yet that's exactly what you're doing.
What THE FUCK makes people think that the scientific community, the top experts on earth, is any different, that they can just dismiss them because they don't like the findings?
"I'm sorry, Mister Harvard Law School Attorney, I can't accept that answer, even though 99.9999% of lawyers all tell me that's what the law says. There's one lawyer, over in Arizona, who tells me that I'm just fine, so screw you pal, I'm not really going to jail no matter what you say!!!" *handwave*
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
