[Reply to ERV evidence supporting evolution...]
First of all the ERVs don't interest me in the slightest, it's like geology and radiometric dating, it doesn't mean anything to me.
45 comments
If bullets don't mean anything to you, then they won't hurt you, right?
One can ignore the facts if one wishes, but it doesn't make those facts any less true.
Oh god please, let this be MN senatorial candidate and republican Mark Kennedy...
I doubt it. Minnesota doesn't have that many fundies - a few, but nowhere near enough for a political candidate to view a statement like this as anything but suicidal.
I'd prefer that both candidates were sane, actually. That way it doesn't matter so much.
What I meant was that they keep telling you it is absolute proof when it is actually a load of supposition.
And you would still be wrong on multiple counts. No one will tell you that it's absolute proof, merely damn good evidence - good enough evidence that it's highly probable that it happened that way. (The other possibilities either require an entity for which there is no evidence or a coincidence of astounding magnitude.) Science doesn't deal in absolute certainty; everything is open to revision if further evidence shows that something about our original theory wasn't quite right.
Typical debate between a scientist and a creationist:
CREATIONIST - There is no evidence for evolution, none whatsoever!
SCIENTIST - Here is evidence for evolution.
CREATIONIST - Well, uhm, that doesn't prove anything!
(continue until the scientist is beating his/her head against the floor in frustration and the creationist declares victory)
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.