Intrepid wrote:For your edification, the most common circular argument in which the scientific evolutionist deals runs more or less like this:
I believe this because the big bang is the reason.
Oh, how do you know that?
It is written in the science books.
But what is the authority of the science books?
It is inspired knowledge.
How can you be certain of that?
Because scientists have said so.
This is, of course, nonsense. A cosmological hypothesis based upon an event such as the putative "Big Bang" has no reference to evolution. You're indulging in apples to oranges. Furthermore, scientific papers and treatises are peer reviewed for content and method, while scripture is always locked into a canonical imperative at some point in time, usually early on in the life of the shell game. Those who consider a theory of evolution to be a good explanation for the diversity of life forms are not engaged in dogmatic belief, they are accepting the most plausible explanation for the data amassed to date. The essence of science is scepticism, which means that if your theory does not adequately explain the data amassed, the theory must either be modified to do so, or scrapped altogther. When hypothesis advances to theory, it must hold up to scrutiny on the basis of prediction. Few, if any, scientific theories have stood up so well to the test of predictability. Religious dogma, on the other hand, does not admit of scepticism, which is immediately condemned as either heresy or apostasy. No revision of scripture is ever countenanced. Certainly it must be entertaining for the religiously deluded to use terms such as "evolutionist." However, those who consider a theory of evolution to be the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life forms are not engaged in promoting an ideology. The religious are doing precisely that.
Quote:Evolution is a theory, not a science.
This is a bootless and fallacious attempt to create a distinction. Evolution is a scientific theory which has an outstanding track record at prediction.
Quote:Creationism is a belief, not a science.
Truer words have rarely been written.
Quote:If evolution could be proved inconclusively then we could do away with God.
One does not seek to inconclusively "prove" evolution. Theories are attempts to explain data, and are therefore subject to review, modification or rejection. A theory of evolution has as one of its strengths that little modification has been needed upon review, and it has stood up very well in the change from a consideration of morphological evidence to genetic evidence. The only rejection of a theory of evolution comes not from the application of the scientific method, but from those frightened for their religious dogma. Evolution does not concern itself with cosmological origins, and it is therefore not an attempt to "do away with god." That is the sort of alarmist paranoia which is dear to the heart of religous demagogues eager to marshall the faithful into an easily manipulated army of "christian soldiers," most often for the political, and too often the venal, ends of said demagogues.
Quote:It seems that science is based on evolution rather than evolution being based on science.
If this seems so to you, one can only conclude that you know precious little about science or evolution.
Quote:Is this a phony science since evolution has not been proven to be true?
You attempt to pose this as a rhetorical question, but your rhetoric is false. Theories are not articulated to prove anything, their purpose is to create the most economical statment of explanation for amassed data. Theories must successfully provide either for replication or be successfully predictive, or they will be abandoned. Evolutionary theory has an excellent predictive record.
Quote:Evolutionists choose to believe in the theory of evolution because they do not want to believe in God and if creation is true there must be a God. Man would not be the supreme being he thinks he is.
You are at least honest about the propaganda which you have either unthinkingly swallowed whole, or seek to disseminate. Once again, those who consider a theory of evolution to be the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life forms are not ideologues promoting a dogmatic belief. If you can produce a more reliable and consistent explanation entailing replicability and/or predictive reliability, your fame and fortune will be assured. A statement such as "they do not want to believe in God" is indicative of paranoia, and suggests that the "they" specified are willfully denying something which cannot logically be denied. In fact, the existence of a deity cannot logically be demonstrated, and such a belief requires blind faith. Anyone, including well-informed laymen, who considers what sciences such as astronomy and physics have learned about our cosmos readily understands that we are insignificant in the face of ordinary forces on this planet, such as storms of hurricane proportion, earthquakes and volcanic activity. They further understand that we inhabit a small planet orbiting a small and unpreposessing star on the fringe of a galaxy which is merely one of millions, if not billions, of such formations. No one with a good grasp of what astronomy and physics have learned will have any illusions about our significance in the cosmos.
Quote:The theory of evolution suggests that non living matter turned into organisms that eventually grew legs and then walked on land and turned into monkeys that further turned into today's man.
This is a simplistic and simple-minded attempt to describe a complex process in terms which can easily be ridiculed. It is also typical of the feeble attempt that the religiously fanatical routinely indulge of attempting to characterize a theory of evolution in a manner which they believe will make it easy to dismiss.
Quote:The theory further goes that this all started with a big bang.
There is not a shred of truth in this statement.
Quote:They cannot answer what went bang and how that ball of plasma material got there to begin with.
Which in no way authorizes a contention that some mystical dude out in the cosmos waved a magic wand and said: "Let there be light."
Quote:If science claims that evolution took place over millions of years to produce what we see today and that the condtions had to be just right, why do scientists search the stars for other life?
If a theory of evolution posited such a thing, you might have a valid question. However, you are begging the question. No one purports that "conditions had to be just right." That's a strawman. A little bit of the application of intelligence would reveal to you that life has taken the forms now evident in response to the conditions under which it arose.
Quote:Scientist recognize The odds against it happening once are beyond human comprehension. More than once?
Which scientists would those be? Do you have some names and references? Making it up as you go along is a very poor forensic technique.
Taken all in all, this was a pathetic display of ignorance and misrepresentaion. Personally, i expect nothing less from the religious fantatic, especially those with paranoid delusions about an assault on their cherished beliefs. Personally, i don't give a rat's ass whether or not there is a deity, nor what you choose to believe. I do care if my tax dollars get spent to puke up religiously-inspired nonsense to school children.
