No one feels threatened by the notion of evolution.
Except creationists, which is why they try to attack the theory at every turn.
Everyone believes in evolution. We see it everyday.
Except creationists, which is why they try to attack the theory at every turn.
The Darwinian idea, and worldview, however, is another story.
It's an idea that even scientist say is impossible... but you, among others believe it.
It's creationists calling it impossible. The consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of biological evolution is correct, and is considered settled science in the main. Your comment is you opposing evolution, undoubtedly because it threatens creationist beliefs - something you say never happens.
Now who in their right mind, would feel threatened by an impossibility? No one.
You feel threatened by the theory, which is why you spread untruths about it.
You say you are not angry, but.... I don't believe you. I would like to, but I have seen too many Atheist react to someone opposing their most loved ideology, and... if they are not angry, then I think we should hide under a rock, if they truly become angry
Can you demonstrate some of this alleged anger, say from this thread? Do you consider this response angry?
So. I believe the idea - not the observable facts - is Satanic
The idea derives from the interpretation.This is you once again on the attack, calling the science the most immoral thing you know to call it - satanic.
The idea that one common ancestor produced all the variety of life forms is absurd to people who are educated about the very theory - scientists included.
And here you go again on the attack spreading falsehoods. The idea of common ancestry for all life on earth is considered probably true (one must always be open to the possibility that an as-yet undiscovered parallel tree of life exists somewhere on earth with a different biochemistry). The idea is provisionally accepted by virtually everybody except science deniers, who are essentially all creationists.
Why do you assume people are not educated about something they don't believe... other than, 'because you believe it'?
We see how they write about the science. Look at all of the mistakes you have made here.
I hear that script all the time, but no Creationist I know, follows an argument like that, so I figure it's a misguided Atheist conclusion.
I see arguments from ignorance (not an insult, but a synonym for unknowing) regularly on these pages
the Bible came before modern science, and much of what they are only now discovering, is, or was not new.
Almost no modern science appears in the Bible, and the little bit that it got right such as that the universe had a beginning, we don't believe because the Bible says so and wouldn't believe now without scientific confirmation.
When Christians make these claims about the Bible being prescient, they're often along the lines of claiming that "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" -
Job 38:35 anticipated modern telecommunications, using electricity to communicate. Pretty weak.
Or that "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
and hangeth the earth upon nothing" - Job 26:7 anticipates modern astronomy. Also pretty weak. Where's the mention of the earth rotating on its axis while orbiting the sun? Why just the north?
Of course, to make such claims about the Bible foreshadowing modern science, you need to ignore all of the errors, such as that the Bible teaches that earth is the center of the universe, that the stars are specks in the sky embedded in a dome the sky which is solid and serves as floor of Jehovah, and that the sun journeys about a flat earth with edges and four corners.
Incidentally, the fallacy here is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, which, according to Wiki, is "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed." Compare the claims in the Bible with the claims from science, and wherever a match or near-match is found, claim that that is significant while disregarding all of the misses.
Modern humans could have put impressive science into those scriptures if they had the ability to communicate with the past and the Bible authors, so why can't a god be at least as helpful and impressive. Why doesn't the Bible teach that there are microscopically small living things that cause disease, give instructions for building a microscopeto, instruct to wash hands before delivering babies, or to go to the Penicillium fungus for substances that can combat these invisible killers? Much more impressive than "lightnings" saying here we are.
The absence of these things tells us that no advanced intelligence was involved in writing scripture.
