The bible..
Out of context: Reply #556
- Started
- Last post
- 571 Responses
- pandasthumb0
i had no intention of dispelling your religious beliefs, just debunking the pseudoscientific nonsense that you trot out about evolution.
I realise that I will never change the minds of the pathologically deluded (deluded about evolution, mind - i don't give a toss about your personal religious philosophy), but individuals such as yourself preach the kind of bullshit that you do to subvert and distort the public understanding of real science. As someone in the know, I feel that I (along with the whole of the scientific community) have a duty to set the record straight for those who may be unsure as to what to believe. It is precisely because creationists such as yourself choose to spread your missinformation in forums such as this one (where you know that the majority of people do not have the training or the background knowledge to challenge your lies and distortions confidently), rather than in a genuine scientific forum (where your arguments would be effortlessly and systematically dismantled) that people with genuine knowledge of the subject seek out your distortions and expose them for the frauds that they are.
Of course I'm not surprised that you aren't a scientist, what surprises me is that you seem to feel confident enough in your scientific knowledge to claim that one of science's most watertight theories is a fraud.
As for showing you some literature that disproves the possibility of Special Creation, it doesn't work like that. The onus is on creation "scientists" to provide one single shred of evidence that suggests any more than superficially that it DID happen. It's ridiculous to accept something as fact simply because it's impossible to show that it couldn't be the case, otherwise we could all go around believing that invisible pink unicorns hold up the clouds (hey - show me one piece of evidence that say that they COULDN'T).
As for atheism/secular humanism and the definitions thereof, if you knew what the terms meant, then why did you willfully and grossly misrepresent them in the way that you did? Is it because it's easier to beat down a strawman than to provide a real argument? And yes the terms are related to some extent, but they do not always go hand in hand. All fish have scales (i think) but not all animals with scales are fish.
As for Charles F. Potter saying that secular humanism is a religion - so what? Your using a simple appeal to authority here - just because Charles say it don't necessarily make it so. And in any case, when i said atheism was not dogmatic, i was referring to atheism - not secular humanism. That much should be plainly obvious to anyone who read my post.
What's interesting is that in your response you fail to directly address any of the points that I have made about evolution, and instead resort entirely to ad hominem attacks, vitriolic bluster and a pointless and fallacious argument against my comments on secular humanism/atheism. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by exposing you as a fraud, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.