Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

silly thing about both evolution and religion are explinations of how something "could" have happened. Yes we can guess how the eye evolved...it could have gone this way. but we dont know if thats true. also, god could have "designed" eyes, but we dont know that either. It seems to me that there is not enough proof on either side for how things "could" have happened.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

silly thing about both evolution and religion are explinations of how something "could" have happened. Yes we can guess how the eye evolved...it could have gone this way. but we dont know if thats true. also, god could have "designed" eyes, but we dont know that either. It seems to me that there is not enough proof on either side for how things "could" have happened.

Right. There's just a remarkable continuity in eye structure among extant species. Don't mean nothing.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

silly thing about both evolution and religion are explinations of how something "could" have happened. Yes we can guess how the eye evolved...it could have gone this way. but we dont know if thats true. also, god could have "designed" eyes, but we dont know that either. It seems to me that there is not enough proof on either side for how things "could" have happened.

Imagine a crime scene in which a large amount of evidence is present linking someone to the crime. There are bloody fingerprints from the suspect all over the place, he has mentioned repeatedly that he hates the murdered person, he has no alibi, and there is almost no evidence to suggest he didn't do it.

Of course, it's possible that it was some third party and a bizarre series of events occurred that made it look as if someone else was the killer.

It's all about probabilities. If I claim unicorns exist you would be stupid to believe the possibility of them existing is equally likely as them not existing. If you claim that it's very likely exist despite no evidence, or very little reliable evidence, that's also stupid. The creditable stance is to be skeptical given that no one else has reliably documented their existence.

If you say "But I absolutely definitely saw a Unicorn" so they must exist, that is not proof either. You might have been hallucinating, misinterpretted something (maybe it was a white horse at a distance in a funny light on a complex background), or any other number of things.

Religious people not only seem to delight in rejecting scientific evidence from peer reviewed papers where the author has no agenda of their own, but to then use biased and unreliable circumstantial proof such as their feelings, or ambigious cases where the exact cause isn't known (e.g. a rare recovery from cancer). The amazing thing about science is that anyone can do an experiment for themselves. If I say the speed of light is approximately 3x10^8 m/s you can test this for yourself. If you disagree that is explained as well. Science always is willing to accept something is wrong that was previously thought right if there is good evidence for it, which religion refuses to do.

It's also funny the claims people make. X recovers from cancer so it's clearly god. It's not a rare case where the immune system recovers and starts attacking an advanced cancer (or some other rare medical process such as the body ignoring the signals that cause new blood vessels to form and feed the tumour). After all, we get on average several cancers in our lives but our immune system kills it and we don't notice anything, but that's definitely impossible in this case. God cured that cancer!

When 9/11 happened, Todd Beamer's wife claimed God put him on the plane. Todd Beamer and other brave men like him were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and did something brave to save other people's lives. God didn't put him there (and fuck thousands of other people over due to an arbitrary decision). These people don't think about the stupidity of their statements. These people's losses are horrible, but stupidity and ignorance are no excuse.

But you never hear this comment sense point made. In that newspaper headline you don't get the full facts on how people survive cancers all the time, you only here ignorant people labelling it as God.

It's also funny that when a case that has no ambiguity comes along, such as losing a limb which we cannot regenerate, such as the leg, no one makes any claims that God causes these limbs to grow back. Strange eh.