Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A Fail That Brings Me To A Serious Question

NephilimFree: "Your belief in evolution is absolutely irrelevant to its voracity. You can test it by trying to disbelieve the theory of gravity. Atheists aren't building anything. There are not enough of the to build anything. They create in their mind the perceptiion that they are doing so, then they believe it. All based upon a rejection of Jesus Christ. Guess what. The mathematics and astonomical explainations of the secular world are fashioned to provide an alternative to the truth. The Eath is not moving. Time-lapse star photography proves it."


OK, if your eyes are done bleeding from the drivel, we arrive at my serious question:


If anyone has the answer, please let me know. You don't have to register to post here, and I do not moderate ANY comments. From my experience, bar none, all "criticisms" of The Theory of Evolution are theistic in origin. If anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary, I would LOVE to see it.


  1. The Earth is not moving!!?? Really? Star photography proves it??!! Wow. A creationist anti-intellectual geocentrist. That's quite the trifecta.

    Has this person heard of parallax?

  2. Similarly, it seems that all of the most fervent support for the Theory of Evolution comes from atheistic origins. Can the smug superiority of this post be derived from an open-minded pursuit of understanding, or is it more of a holy war for the atheists as well?

    Evidence is a slippery thing. Are you just crowing about a lack of concrete evidence for a supernatural creator? How could there be concrete evidence, if by 'concrete' you mean consistent with the behavior of natural forces? If there was evidence for something supernatural, would a natural science not fail to correctly interpret it (hence the "super"), and would you not reject it as evidence? Could a supernatural interaction with the natural realm be completely explained within the natural realm?

    You ask a tricksy question, because what you mean by actual and valid is any evidence that does not contradict the assumptions you already hold.

    1. the only things i have heard refuting evolution theory is that proteins and DNA need each other to survive and evolution cannot explain how the 2 could come together, the central principle of evolution theory has not yet been proven (missing link), and various historical anomolies that, because they do not fit with evolution they are rejected - im sure you can use google to find these along with the critiques/rebuttals - the thing i find interesting is that mainstream science is not willing to come forward with these inconsistencies - i mean we are all just looking for some tangible truth aren't we?