Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I can't seem to get/keep this one featured for some reason. I wonder why?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"Molecules to man" is a logical fallacy known as a strawman. It deliberately misrepresents and oversimplifies evolutionary theory in order to try to make it seem absurd.

No one says that common descent is true only because of variations within a species. Common descent is well supported by evidence. If you study evolution or ask a biologist, you will learn this. Using that logic, it's a "bait and switch" to say that since I can walk from my bedroom to my kitchen, therefore I can walk from my house to the grocery store. It's the same thing, just on a larger scale.

Evolution is science and it is falsifiable. What is not falsifiable or scientific is any claim religion makes about the supernatural. Also, to say that faith is the evidence of things not seen is absurd. Faith is not evidence of anything.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that I’m not strawmanning the religion of evolution. Science, of course, involves observation, u | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
*sigh* let's break this down

You strawmanned evolution by deliberately misrepresenting it.

Evolution is not a religion.

Yes, science does involve observation. It also involves inference. If you think something is invalid because a scientist wasn't there to personally witness it, then anyone convicted of murder or **pe through forensic evidence should immediately be set free, because no forensic scientist was there to witness to crime themselves.

Creationism isn't science because it's not observable or repeatable.

One can only observe things in the present, that's true. That's where inference comes in.

No creationist was present, either. So why should I believe anything they say?

Evolution is observable and falsifiable. Creationism is neither. Did anyone observe God create the universe? Is it repeatable?

Scientific conclusions, though not being provable to a mathematical degree of certainty, are not "taken on faith". And even things that are taken on faith aren't automatically part of religion.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
YOU ARE CORRECT AND I APOLOGIZE. I DID CALL EVOLUTION A RELIGION IN MY SECOND MEME IT IS NOT ITSELF A "RELIGION" IT IS A DOGMA OF SEVERAL BE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
How exactly did I misrepresent evolution?
Was it by saying that scientists who are evolutionists and scientists who are creationists both look at the same data and evidence and come to different conclusions based on their presuppositions about what took place in the unobservable?
Bring up forensic science is a category error because that data can be tested and agreed upon by anyone because it does not rely on the presuppositions one has about the unobserved past.
What you call "inference" is the evolutionist making the data fit their presuppositions about the unobserved past.
I'm not claiming that what I believe is "science" nor that it is repeatable or observable, but you are. The only thing you can observe is inner species variation and then "infer" that the rest of it must be true because of "reasons" (mainly that if fits your presuppositions.) You take in on faith, which you are correct, doesn't necessarily make it religious in nature. But holding the tenets of your beliefs as incontrovertibly true is dogma just like that of "those religious nuts" like me!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"How exactly did I misrepresent evolution?"

Calling it "molecules to man," as I already explained, is a deliberate oversimplification of evolution.

"Was it by saying that scientists who are evolutionists and scientists who are creationists both look at the same data and evidence and come to different conclusions based on their presuppositions about what took place in the unobservable?"

Creationism is not science because it does not follow the scientific method.

"Bring up forensic science is a category error because that data can be tested and agreed upon by anyone because it does not rely on the presuppositions one has about the unobserved past."

Any crime not captured on camera results in a crime scene that is the unobserved past.

"What you call "inference" is the evolutionist making the data fit their presuppositions about the unobserved past."

No, it is logical deductions resulting from the data. Imagine you know a swimming pool fills with water at (for example) one foot every thirty minutes. If you see a pool filling up, and the water is at five feet, you can deduce (and infer) that it began filling two and a half hours ago. You weren't there when it started filling, and you didn't watch the process of it filling. But inference and deduction lead you to that conclusion.

"I'm not claiming that what I believe is "science" nor that it is repeatable or observable, but you are. The only thing you can observe is inner species variation and then "infer" that the rest of it must be true because of "reasons" (mainly that if fits your presuppositions.)"

Speciation is one species changing to another species. This has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.

"But holding the tenets of your beliefs as incontrovertibly true is dogma just like that of "those religious nuts" like me!"

Except I don't hold science as incontrovertibly true. Science is ALWAYS open to change and revision. Is the Bible? Is Christianity?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Theology Nerd  | I believe that the most biblically consistent position to hold on origins of life is that of young earth creationism. I don't believe that C | image tagged in theology nerd | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
So, it didn’t start out with singled celled organisms (notwithstanding the question of where those single celled organism came from) and now there are sentient beings with rational and logical minds? Does presenting it as more complicated make it more true or do a lot of words just appease people who don’t question their presuppositions?

So, are you saying that there are no doctors, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and other scientists that are creationists or are you attacking something that I didn’t even say?

Bringing up forensics is a category error because what took place at a crime scene last week, last year, or a decade or more ago has NOTHING to do with anyone’s presuppositions about first causes, origins of life, age of the earth, etc. (unobserved past, “billions” of years from my previous statement.) I don’t know if you’re struggling with reading comprehension, following my reasoning, or if your logic is just that bad where you equate what can be deduced from a crime scene with what evolutionists imagine happened a billion years ago.

We agree with speciation because that can be observed. I shouldn’t have left speciation out of my original meme. I equivocated inner species variation with speciation. What has never been observed is one phenotype of animal changing its morphological form into another form. That is what would be necessary for dissent from a common ancestor. Billions and billions of transitional species would come in handy to prove that has happened but they have not been found in the fossil record. Saying that you “deduce, reason, or infer” that speciation means phenotypes had to change at one point is another way to say “we speculate that is how it happened because that fits our presuppositions.”

So, are you saying there is no such thing as “settled science”? If so, tell the majority of evolutionists and the people crying about man-made climate change.
reply
2 ups
I agree that young earth creationism is the most biblically consistent position to take. I would disagree that any evidence supports it, of course. But yes, it is biblically consistent.

"So, it didn’t start out with singled celled organisms (notwithstanding the question of where those single celled organism came from) and now there are sentient beings with rational and logical minds?"

Single-celled organisms aren't the first living things. There were predecessors further back. A single cell organism didn't just spontaneously appear fully formed.

"So, are you saying that there are no doctors, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and other scientists that are creationists or are you attacking something that I didn’t even say?"

I'm saying that creationism is not scientific, so I don't think I would call someone a scientist if they are a creationist. Just like reincarnation is not a Christian belief, so if someone believes in reincarnation, would you call them a Christian?

"Bringing up forensics is a category error because what took place at a crime scene last week, last year, or a decade or more ago has NOTHING to do with anyone’s presuppositions about first causes, origins of life, age of the earth, etc. (unobserved past, “billions” of years from my previous statement.)"

A crime scene is something people come to with presuppositions, like most other areas of science.

"I don’t know if you’re struggling with reading comprehension, following my reasoning, or if your logic is just that bad where you equate what can be deduced from a crime scene with what evolutionists imagine happened a billion years ago."
Flip Settings
does your dog bite memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
GOD ISN'T REAL
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back