Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper
Perhaps I made you and now control you through a chip in your head. You can create all the hypothetical scenarios you wish, so long as you realize it doesn't change reality or comprise evidence of anything.
I don't understand what you mean with the first statement, and I also disagree with the second part. I think you need to read up on the scientific method.
In other words, they have nothing.
Define "bashing". To point out that the ToE is proven and that the Bible has no evidence going for it isn't "bashing", it's stating facts, just like it was a statement of fact back when they discovered the Earth is round, and that it orbits the Sun.
I also disagree with your sweeping assessment that everyone who bashes science or religion does so for reasons of personal insecurity.
Of course, but the question of evolution is like the question of whether or not the Earth is round. Offensive and hurtful thought it might be to some to hear, one side has all the evidence and the other side has none.
Sure, the Earth could be flat, the US could really be just off the coast of Australia, and Apollo 11 could have veered off course and accidentally landed on some other rocky moon without realizing. But as a wise man once said, "it's possible for one side to be simply wrong".
I think you've misunderstood something fundamental about reality: it doesn't care what humans do.
Firstly, Dawkins isn't "mr. Evolution" by any stretch of the word. Science isn't a religion where we blindly believe things with no evidence because prophets tell us so, and you can damage that belief by attacking those prophets. The scientific method is based on actual observation of reality, and testable hypotheses.
Put another way: let's say a murderer says the Earth is round, while a minister who has devoted his entire life to helping people says the Earth is flat and that 2+2=22.
The killer, of course, is correct. You can jump up and down and yell "but he's a murderer, and he smells bad, and he stutters when you ask him questions, and he drinks all day, why do you listen to him?!", but it doesn't matter who he is or what he's done, it matters whether or not he's correct.
Unlike religion, the scientific method is not about upholding traditional tribal beliefs, but about discovering how the world actually works. Personal attacks, of course, are completely irrelevant in this regard. All that matters is evidence. Dawkins could've pissed his pants and fainted and then gone stark raving mad in some documentary, and it wouldn't matter one thing, because the ToE would still be proven, and the evidence would still be there.
Are you referring to the clip where they dishonestly cut together two clips that had nothing to do with each others?
I know. So are Michael Moore's documentaries. They've litterally manipulated hundreds of thousands of people. It's sad.
Ummmm, nope. It might seem so from the outside because of how rigidly it tests new ideas (which it has to, because, of course, it's about discovery, not tradition or believers' feelings), but it's the best tool we have, and it does strive towards discovery, not dogma.
Don't. There are people out there who actually are subjected to this kind of feelings, and you trying to elevate light-hearted jokes on an internet forum to murderous "hatefulness" is an insult to all of them.
For the love of God, grow up.
|