It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[LadyForCamus]

Look, if a scientific theory is not a fact (defined by your own source) then it is opinion, that's all there is to it. You made it very clear that theories can change, Facts however do not.

Oh my god, seriously? Now I feel like you are playing dumb. I don't know how much more clear I can be: A scientific theory is the highest level of graduation in science. It is comprised of many, many scientific facts that have been demonstrated repeatedly to the degree that they have predictive power, and can accurately describe how something works. No, not every theory in science may be considered a fact (yet) but a theory CONTAINS FACTS. And to Rob's point, evolution in particular has been so well demonstrated that it is considered scientific fact. The problem here is that you simply refuse to accept the lay-person's use of the word "theory," is not the same as "scientific theory." No one can force you to see this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Seriously? Weren't you the one claiming life had been created in a lab, and even linked to sources YOU thought backed up that claim? Anyone with half a brain knew that was a bogus claim seeing how that would have been the biggest achievement in the history on mankind, yet you want to talk about my level of understanding...

I feel like we are going around in circles here, Huggy. Not only did I acknowledge that my word choice was imprecise, I went ahead and corrected myself. That is to say: necessary building blocks for life have been demonstrated to arise both naturally and artificially in the lab. Building blocks that, by the way, happen to fit theoretical models scientists are positing for potential mechanisms of abiogenesis. Imagine that.

Further more, I went on to explain that my poor word choice was in no way detrimental to the point I was making. Remember "follow the evidence"? But alas, you ignored all that.

If you understood the Bible, you couldn't see it as anything other than the truth. Bid not Jesus say that the scriptures (speaking of the old testament) testify of him? The whole bible is about Jesus Christ.

Ah, the old: "you're just not reading it right" defense. Sorry, but you don't get to say the bible is true because it says so in the bible. That is like, the antithesis of evidence.

Please. all I did was show that the bible and evolution don't contradict insomuch as animals do evolve, I just don't believe we all evolved from an amoeba.

Exactly. You go along with science until it hits a point where there is an undeniable contradiction, at which point you default to your unsupported beliefs, instead of following the evidence. You not being able to fathom that life arose from non-life, and that we all share a common ancestor has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true. This is a fallacy from personal incredulity.

So you completely gloss over the fact that there was an audio recording 1958 (which was not part of the TV program but was added later) that corroborates that she was telling the truth? Also a man (William Branham) who never seen her before being able to tell her where she was from and what her trouble was.

You're not listening. I don't care if she was telling the truth. If you are going to assert that what supposedly happened to this woman was the result of divine intervention versus a rare medical occurrence, you have to demonstrate that. You must first demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't natural, and then you must demonstrate that it was God. You cant.

God Is a God of order, not chaos, there is a reason for how things work, relativity existed long before it was ever defined. Radio waves existed long before there was a radio. Aerodynamics existed long before there were aeronautical engineers.

.

So, for some reason God decided to use philosophical language and incomplete descriptions for the laws governing his own universe, yet he takes the time to explain in detail the rules for acquisitioning and beating of slaves? Right.

visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. Any errors you identify should be reported to the authors or to the editor. The archive also maintains a contact page.

If this is acceptable to you, I don't want to hear complaints of any sources I link not being peer reviewed.

Lol, sure, and way to leave out the most important part. Every essay links to the original research it uses, and the website also self-corrects with a 'report' link for errors. Hmm...'critical thinking,' and 'self-correcting.' There are those phrases again...