Where is the damn solid evidence

Published December 3rd, 2007 by Bobby Henderson

Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.

Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.

I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned. You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.

Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.

I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.

Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.

-A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician

[this message was left as a comment on another thread]

210 Responses to “Where is the damn solid evidence”

1 24 25 26
  1. glenghis kahn says:

    there is a scientific answer to intelligent design its called gaia theory and its got the christian fundamentalist shitting them selves, because its not the god of the bible

  2. theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

    It’s amazing to me that Creationists will ignore any amount of evidence while at the same time offering NONE – ZIP – ZERO to support their side. No example of irreducible complexity has ever been found. The eye is sometimes sited, yet even Darwin, over a hundred years ago, completely refuted this argument. Models have been created which determined that sight offers such an advantage that – conservatively – eyes would evolve in under 400,000 years.

    “And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp*”. Actually, I think it would be great to have a beneficient creator and an afterlife. Have any damn solid evidence of them??

    • Keith says:

      As far as the eye goes (and I may have mentioned this in another post), the fossil record of trilobites clearly demonstrates the progression from a simple light sensor on the skin to the compound eye. I have never read of any fossil inscribed “designed by God” or “Deus facet” or whatever.

  3. we finance flag says:

    thank you for sharing with us, I think this website truly stands out : D.

  4. Buy Backlinks says:

    Love all the opinions expressed here! How is everyone? :)

  5. Maleficus says:

    Notice the capitalized T in the word Truth there…. Like the G in God, or the H in Him….
    “Physicist”? Possibly.
    Fundamentalist? Definitely.

    • Keith says:

      No: He/she/it said “Physician”- probably a rather stuffy and old fashioned doctor of medicine, probably wears a blood encrusted frock coat. My doctor is an atheist and I am glad of that.

  6. theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

    “Outside-the-box thinking” is fine, but hardly a means of PROVING anything. Throwing up your hands and saying “Beats me! It must be magic!” is hardly adhering to the Scientific Method. You want to believe in God? Fine by me, but if you want to advance his existence in place of evolution or any other science, PROVE IT.

1 24 25 26

Leave a Reply