What I mostly encounter on the vast new world of unlimited uppertunities under God that is the internet in the debate about evolution is this:
- People who believe in God and believe that in science, ‘theory’ means ‘not yet proven’
- People who are atheist and consider the nonexistence of any ‘god’ to be proven, also evolution.
Both sides are redundantly stupid and the latter one often LOL biologists LOL. Let there be no mistake about it, the occurence of evolution is scientifically proven beyond all resonable doubt, the evidene is overwhelming and if you cannot see this you simply don’t want evolution to be there. We have fosiles, we have documentation in fosiles of life slowly changing from how it was 40 000 000 years back to how it is now. We have fosiles documenting man evolving. We have fosiles of dinosaurs evolving into Birds, and please, do not say there aren’t any ‘missing links’. That’s bullshit, evolution is continious, it continious evolving, every species found is a link between the former and the next, we are a link between the homo ergaster and what may come after us. We have observer bacteria evolving in the lab into new species so don’t come with that ‘micro-evolution’ versus ‘macro-evolution’ crap.
However, atheist biologists. still. fucking. suck.
Arguments thereto are so enourmously simple. Their inability at coherent logic is saddeningly vast. Atheism for instance, they have argued thereto with the same amount of absurdity we often see from Young Earth Creationism against the age of the earth. Some simple arguments I have seen:
I have no reason to believe a god exists, therefore I don’t believe a god exists.
Logically fallacy, reduced to the absurd by: ‘I have no reason to believe all the specific people I’ve never met exist, therefore I don’t believe they exist.’ next:
Russell’s teapot shows no god exists and it’s random to assume it does.
False, Russell’s teapot says this: ‘If I were to point at a specific place in space and tell you there is a teapot there with no way for you to check that place, would you say there was a teapot there? If no, why say the same about God, it goes against occam’s razor.’, the difference being is that this shows the unlikeliness of the Abrahamic monotheistic God to exist, quite true, however for it to show that no god exists we would need a formulation of: ‘If I were to point at a all random places in space and tell you there is ‘any-thing’ there with no way for you to check those places, would you say there was ‘no-thing’ at any of those places where ‘any-thing’ is for your imagination to decide. If no, why say the same about any gods?’, this makes it a tad more complicated to overrule I hope.
Creationism is proven false in science.
Nonsense, Young Earth Creationism is contradictory to modern scientific consensus, creationism isn’t, in fact, creationism is currently independent of the modern physical framework. For fucks sake, I have to continue explaining to theists that Creationism and science aren’t contradictory, but Young Earth Creationism and science are. In fact, Creationism solves a great deal of puzzles, but those can also be solved of course by the multiverse hypothesis, and neither can we prove false or true at the moment. How could we, we can’t look before the big bang of course, we can’t say if the big bang was ’started’ by some intelligent force who devised all almost perfect laws of physics for complex structures to occur. Or it’s just so that this universe by sheer chance allows it because there are countless more in which they don’t occur combined with the anthropic principle. Biologists oft.. always think that the multiverse combined with the anthropic principle is more ’scientific’ as it has an ‘aurora of scientificness’ around it, this is is complete nonsense.
It’s important to realize though that we can’t speak of ‘before the big bang’, this is what a lot of people get wrong about the concept, that there used to be a certain long time of silence in a large void and then, BAM. Not quite, there was no time before the big bang, that’s the zeropoint of time. The universe started with a bang. It isn’t that ’some-thing came from no-thing’, ‘every-thing’ simply started in one point and then banged.
Obviously Young Earth Creationists are blind, but the same can often be said about biologists in the vein of Dawkins, they aren’t ’scientific’ in the sense that they also true to prove right a certain thing, they’re not trying to investigate what’s true, they have their minds made up and then try to prove it right. However what they try to prove right has an ‘aurora of scientificness’ around it, making Dawkins appear attractively British-the end.