Group Coerced Censorship

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Wow. What an awful post. First of all, evolution is something that goes over thousands and thousands of years, second of all you made absolutely no mention of there being proof of god. You can ignore all the evidence of evolution if you want, but it might be best to keep it to yourself.

Why so quick to dismiss one arguably incomplete explination (biblical creation), and buy another (evolution)?

Open-mindedness is the best possible way to approach the theory of evolution, but that would require one to be willing to potentially reject an incomplete theory. By all means correct me if I'm wrong Daseal, but what makes Angry's assumption that evolution is false any less awful that your assumption that the bible was fabricated?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Why so quick to dismiss one arguably incomplete explination (biblical creation), and buy another (evolution)?

Open-mindedness is the best possible way to approach the theory of evolution, but that would require one to be willing to potentially reject an incomplete theory. By all means correct me if I'm wrong Daseal, but what makes Angry's assumption that evolution is false any less awful that your assumption that the bible was fabricated?

It's not about anything being awful, it's about what's true. Moreover, it's not enough to argue that a theory is incomplete, you must also proffer a better explanation based on observable evidence, which no one has been able to do to the satisfaction of the scientific community. This is what so many religious people just don't understand: pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory without offering a better theory based on scientific standards constitutes an incomplete argument.

If you want to believe in religion fine, but don't act like it's equally plausible based on testable scientific observation because it's not.