RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 12:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 12:12 pm by SteelCurtain.)
(May 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Just because some things are old doesn't necessarily mean that it is untrue.
Yes, Rev, that is certainly sometimes the case. But can you appreciate the idea that in this case, since science is a constantly changing and updating library of knowledge, that this is a misguided and misrepresented idea on the subject? Can you appreciate the fact that (despite apparently searching for a week), you couldn't find a more recent quote to (once again) quote mine? Can you at least address the fact that literally EVERY TIME YOU HAVE POSTED SOMEONE'S IDEAS ON EVOLUTION, THAT IDEA HAS BEEN REDACTED IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S INTENDED MEANING? (I see creationists do the CapsLock thing quite a bit, I'm thinking they think it means super serial)
Can you appreciate the dishonesty in that?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
