Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 67785

Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science. As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail. But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?

GodGunsGuts, freerepublic 47 Comments [11/24/2009 7:28:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 48
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
WMTimothy

Because...it's...not. End of story. You can't begin with the answers and invent the reason behind it. That's not science.

11/24/2009 7:31:44 PM

dpareja

Micro/macroevolution is a strawman.

Also:



11/24/2009 7:49:45 PM

Wehpudicabok

You take one glance at a journal of biology, and you'll realize how stupid you sound right now.

11/24/2009 7:53:01 PM

Doubting Thomas

Because Creation or Intelligent Design has absolutely no science to back it up. It starts with the conclusion of "Goddidit" and goes from there, keeping any possible "evidence" which appears to support the theory, and trying like hell to discard the mountains of evidence which disprove it.

11/24/2009 7:54:19 PM

Hammurabi

How can these people write things like this and not realize that they have everything backwards. Evolution has more supporting evidence published in peer-reviewed journals each month than ID/Creationism has EVER PRODUCED, published or not. Which isn't hard considering that there has never been any evidence put forth that supports ID, only weak arguments against evolution.

11/24/2009 7:59:23 PM

Osiris

I don't assume. I know Creation/ID isn't science because none of you guys have ever published in a peer reviewed scientific general. I do read those things you know and I see a lot of stuff in evolution in there.

11/24/2009 8:00:36 PM

tracer

"why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"


Um ... lack of falsifyability?
Lack of testable predictions?
Failure of the few testable predictions they DO make?
Their need to say "thus-and-such is too complex to have evolved" without being able to prove why?

11/24/2009 8:10:59 PM

The Bad Guy

Okay sir, you win, evolution isn't science.

Incidentally, the bible is still wrong. Same with your dumbass political views.

11/24/2009 8:11:11 PM

WMDKitty

Because, dipshit, it's certifiable bat-shit insanity.

11/24/2009 8:18:32 PM

Old Viking

For starters, it's neither testable nor falsifiable.

11/24/2009 8:27:54 PM

refuter of fundy vermin

Kent Hovind’s fundy creation myth has never been science.

Fixed.

Once again, Freepers prove they are dumber than earthworms.

11/24/2009 8:58:23 PM

The Jamo

We're not the ones assuming anything. You're the ones who have to explain how intelligent design is falsifiable so that it can be tested experimentally.

I won't hold my breath.

11/24/2009 9:05:45 PM

ME

"Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never ..."

And right there the conversation ends. It also shows that you have no fucking clue what evolution is; and just as importantly, what it is not. Evolution is not concerned with "craetion", a.k.a. our origins. Evolution is concerned with the fact that things, ummmmm, evolve.

11/24/2009 9:36:15 PM

Berny

God
Guns
Guts

but obviously no brain.

11/24/2009 9:52:02 PM

Horsefeathers

"Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science."

Neither Darwin's version nor the modern version of evolution has anything to do with "creation" you moron.

"As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail."

You keep using words you apparently don't know the meaning to and making up others haphazardly. I think you should stop while you're ahead.

"But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"

It's not testable, has no supporting evidence, makes no predictions, has no experiments to conduct, has no actual support from scientists in the appropriate fields, has no peer reviewed papers in any reputable scientific journals... should I go on?

11/24/2009 9:56:11 PM

louislois

I feel a quote from biologist Richard Dawkins can explain this fundy's rant perfectly:

"Evolution is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don't."

11/24/2009 9:58:49 PM

Zoo

"why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"

Nobody's assuming that. We -know- that, because we've looked at it and understood what it is and what it isn't. Obviously you haven't done the same with evolutionary theory, since you think we follow Darwin to the letter.

11/24/2009 10:15:21 PM

Sasha

Creationism doesn't fit the definition of science. And it's never demonstrated any solid evidence. And its proponents lie about absolutely everything.

Just for starters.

11/24/2009 10:33:02 PM

BobsOldSocks

"Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science."

Liar.

"As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail."

Liar.

"But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"

It makes no testable predictions and has no evidence to support it. But the biggest problem creationism has in being considered science is that its a religious belief - it appeals to the supernatural, something which science cannot detect or test and thus can safely ignore.

11/24/2009 11:05:18 PM

Thejebusfire

" But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?"

I don't quote Star Trek very often but, it's because ID is, "highly illogical".




11/24/2009 11:44:48 PM

Eden

If it is science, then where are the scientific papers published by Creationist/ID Researchers, which support Creationism/ID?
(with papers of course I mean papers which adhere to scientific standards and haven´t been disproven yet)

11/25/2009 12:25:53 AM

aaa

You have no idea what any of those words mean. Bugger off.

11/25/2009 12:31:52 AM

The FBI is controlling your thoughts via your toaster

You know, an animated gif of Peter Griffin rubbing his eyebrows and saying "Ahhhh..." would be perfect here.

11/25/2009 12:33:14 AM

raindrops

We don't assume, you do.

11/25/2009 1:48:44 AM

Clown

Because G0d is not scientific explanation and never was. Explain god/creator/Inteligent designer in scientific terms. Also, Creationism is not testable.

11/25/2009 2:44:38 AM
1 2