God vs. Science

[The12lber]

Well actually there is a reason why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"...? It is classified as a theory. And you are very good at making your sentences sound nice and intricate and whatever. But to think that the science that studies all of the fields you mentioned above are in any way related to the study of evolution is a far better example of idiocy. Now I didn't insult anyone else for their beliefs and I would expect the same from you. You do realize that the last time they did a national survey, only something like 10-20% (I don't remember the exact number, but I'm almost positive it was 15%) believes in atheistic evolution. I don't completely throw out the idea of the possibility of it actually working, but at least when I looked at it, I found macro-evolution to be a stretch. Not to say it was way off or all scientists who buy into it are a quack. All I'm saying is that there is faith applied to that belief system too. There are still holes in the theory and I can't explain everything that happens based on my faith. You put your faith where you want, and I'll put mine where I see fit.

The celestial bodies in our solar system orbiting around the sun and the peridiocity of elements? Yeah, those are theories too, but I don't see widespread dissent among the general population about phosphorous' status as a nonmetal or too many geocentrists around. General relativity? Yeah, there's another one. Lots of well accepted scientific "facts" are actually encompassed within theories.

"Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

Science isn't faith. Science is facts. If science was faith, you wouldn't be able to read this now. Your home would be unlit, without internet access and that computer you're reading this on right now wouldn't exist. But clearly, you are. There are a lot of scientific theories that allow for the existence of all these things, but clearly it is just faith because none of it works/is provabable(lol).

If you don't like science that contradicts the bible, you should start taking on astronomy, geology, paleontology and archaeology as well as evolution/biology.

In short, you are dumb.

And as a side note, I was using all of those other things as an example of how well developed science goes uncontested until it starts stepping on religious idiots' toes. I wasn't saying that the existence of coal power plants is direct evidence that evolutionary biology is correct or something equally insane.. The best part is, you thought I was and said I was an idiot for it. More reading comprehension next time.

As another side note, I can't believe you would incorporate statistics into your argument. Not only are statistics quite often bull**** but opinion polls don't mean **** about the validity of something. George Bush was elected to the office of president twice - one time he even got enough votes to win by a popular majority - The Backstreet Boys, N'Sync and Brittney Spears are all best-selling "artists/artistic groups" and most Americans probably think that Muslim babies are baptised in the blood of freshly beheaded westerners. People are dumb and are wrong all the time.

To wrap this up so I don't need to make another reply

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[5][6] Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[7] .When discussing the topic, creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution""

Basically, you can contest it, but the science isn't "inconclusive" by any means. Its also worth saying that from a logical standpoint, when one accepts "micro-evolution", you are allowing for the existence of "macro-evolution". Saying that a species can evolve slightly but that one species cannot evolve into another is a logical fallacy. What do you think evolution is? IT IS A PERIOD OF SMALL CHANGES OVER A LONG LONG TIME - WHEN PUT ON A LONG ENOUGH TIME LINE, SOME OF THE FISH GET LUNGS AND THEIR FINS BECOME LEGS. Why do you think chickens have latent genetic information that allows for the growth of tails and teeth? God damn some people are dense.