- Jan 6, 2009
- 9,094
- 1,748
- 190
This is incorrect. You have not genuinely studied evolution. This is *proof.*
I don't need to prove that you have more studying to do, you've just done it for me. And for the record - you know that as well. You must, unless you're sick or something.
I never claimed to study evolution, to be an expert on it, nor have I denied the science of evolution. Your article denies creationism, yet at the same time says that the origin of life has no place in a discussion on evolution. So which is it? Then quit calling it 'creationism'. I agree that creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive... Life originated somehow, someway, the theory of evolution has no bearing on that one way or the other. Those who believe in evolution seem to think that it also proves no intelligent design for some reason, I'm not sure how that logic works? There is no proof of species evolving into other species, which is the other subject your article tried to expound on, that there's really no difference between macro and micro evolution, as if it's that simple to make a statement such as that. Actually, the person that Oliver wrote the article for gave a very good rebuttal down in the blog comments. I suggest you go read it.
Also, anyone that writes an article from his lofty pedestal, looking down on people who believe differently than he does, and makes insulting comments about them is immediately dismissed on my part. As was pointed out further down in the blog, it's like it's some kind of war to bring people over to his side, as if to 'save' them... sound familiar??? What saving do they need? They die and return to dust, what possible difference does it make to an atheist what anyone believes since it's all irrelevant in the end?
Evolution isn't a belief, it's a fact. You can continue on about the blog; but then, you're skipping the Smithsonian, and the other sources. They are minutia to the underlying theory. But anyways,
Like you said, you've not studied it. Anyone who's studied it (without an agenda, mind you!) knows that it's a fact.
Believe it or not, the "scientific community" despite being dragged into politics and having its name libeled? Is its own harshest critic.
In order to learn truth, you always have to play devil's advocate with your own beliefs. Until a person is willing to do that, they'll never be able to reach their own learning potential.
Lastly - I don't give a shit about what you project atheists' motives are. For one, I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic which is the only rational belief on these matters in the context of current human knowledge, and two: you're making assumptions.
Your article was belittling and attacking people of faith, I never brought faith into the discussion at all. Any 'scientific' article that has to rely on that bullshit to prove a point is a waste of my time.