Creationism is a far more investigative science then evolution. The reason, is because it sets out to prove something. Evolution ultimately makes up theories that appears to make sense in keeping with the theory.
It's harder to try and prove something without changing the original premise (the Bible) than it is to make changes to a theory not bound by any concrete belief.
22 comments
Shitwits said: "Creationism is a far more investigative science then evolution."
Why exactly can't we change the original premise (the Bible)? If the facts demonstrate that it's wrong, why keep believing it?
Only a truly foolish man would keep attempting to prove something when a literal avalance of evidence to the contrary is raining down upon their head. I'm not sure you have any clue what the word "investigative" means at all. Would you like to live in a world where when a crime is committed, police simply charge the closest person with it, throw them in jail, and spend the rest of their lives trying to find evidence to prove they did it, all the while ignoring the half naked guy with the knife running up and down the street screaming his confession, passing out polaroids of himself committing the crime, and waving a blood splattered knife at everyone?dumbasses ! They were ignorant goat farmers for my sake! I had to explain things in ways they would understand and not get freaked out over! But you are smarter and much more sophisticated now, so get your heads out of your asses and marvel at how it really happened!"
"It's harder to try and prove something without changing the original premise (the Bible) than it is to make changes to a theory not bound by any concrete belief." when the evidence overwhelmingly disproves that premise , is NOT a virtue. It is, in fact, antiscience.
~David D.G.
Yeah, so what? Of course it is harder to prove something when you start with a faulty premise and then refuse to change that premise.
Creationism is a far more investigative science then evolution. The reason, is because it sets out to prove something.
This is the problem. Evolution is an aspect of science, which tries to discover how the world and universe work. Creationism sets out to prove a single point, whether or not that point is valid. (Or, to be more accurate, even when the point is proven invalid.)
Evolution ultimately makes up theories that appears to make sense in keeping with the theory.
What's this supposed to mean? That evolution is internally consistent but false? That biologists forge evidence to support evolution? In both cases, you're wrong; those apply to creationism but not evolution.
It's harder to try and prove something without changing the original premise (the Bible) than it is to make changes to a theory not bound by any concrete belief.
Yes, that's true. It's distinctly harder to prove something that's been proven wrong than to simply admit you were mistaken and change your original belief. That's the main problem with creationism; creationists just won't admit that the Bible is wrong.
Suppose you were sitting in a car. The driver tells you that the road is a bit bumpy, but dry. Halfway through the drive, however, you see a big lake in the middle of the road, likely left over from a rainstorm the night before. The lake looks quite deep, but the driver doesn't stop. He informs you: "I have a map which says that there is no lake." You point out the obvious existance of the lake in the road ahead. He tells you: "It's harder to try and prove something without changing the original premise (the Map) than it is to make changes to a theory not bound by any concrete belief. Since your lake-belief is only a theory and is contradicted by the words of the Holy Mapmaker, we can tell that there is no lake." Shortly afterwards, you drive into the lake. As the car sinks, you hear your driver muttering: "I do not believe in a lake. I have faith that there is no lake."
Should you both survive, the driver will tell you that there never was a lake. Eventually, he will admit that there was a puddle but not an actual lake. (Just like the creationists who accept "microevolution.") Finally, he will admit that there was a lake, but claim that a route symbol on his map was actually a metaphorical lake, and that the map is still accurate, if not literally true, and must be used as a guide in the future. (Like the Pope, who accepts evolution, but still makes the god-claim.) You obviously decide never to ride or drive in the same country as him ever again.
(Sorry, couldn't be left out of the analogy game. Admittedly, mine is really just a conglomeration of two other analogies I've heard about Bibble-followers.)
<<< It's harder to try and prove something without changing the original premise (the Bible) than it is to make changes to a theory not bound by any concrete belief. >>>
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
