Re: Back to Genesis #2 [Part I]

I typed this in Word and when I pasted it my old defunct Myspace blog’s entry form it acquired some weird formatting errors which I was unable to get rid of. Sorry for any inconvenience. Remember when I did a response to Back to Genesis #1? Well I’m back with a few comments on B2G #2.

I don’t have too much to say about this one because the vast bulk of it was aimed at atheist understandings of abiogenesis. Since I’m not an atheist and don’t hold such views I wont give comment except to say that the attacks against atheism were slightly illogical. Ill leave it up to the atheists to defend their viewpoints. Here we go…

Claim #1
In Isaiah 5:20, 21, we read, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!”

Too bad that evolution is not a moral ideology; its a scientific theory. No amount of whining or bullshitting is going to change that. I don’t mind seeing bible quotes in religious debates, but please at least make sure they’re relevant.

Claim #2
EVOLUTION IS BELIEF: I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, “science” is defined as “knowledge,” and that which can be “observed and repeatedly tested.” I insisted that evolution was belief not science.

Since when did we need a human witness to know whether or not something happened? Last time I checked most murders aren’t exactly done in the middle of a crowded room in broad daylight. Yet criminals still get put behind bars anyway. Why is this? Ill give you a clue, it starts with “e” and ends with “vidence”. Evidence happens to be the thing that leads people to believe in evolution, too.

By your logic the study of the Barringer Crater in Arizona is non-scientific because you can’t replicate that particular meteor impact. As far as evolution being repeatable, it is possible in theory to replicate all of evolutionary history. Problem is you’d need to be omnipotent and omniscient to do so. Since even creationists will admit that only God has these qualities it seems like they expect too much out of scientists- people they’re ever so fond to point out as being fallible.

And since when was human testimony more accurate than observed phenomena, even when it’s indirectly observed? If you set up a video camera in your backyard to film a rainstorm on Wednesday and ask Bob on Thursday Hey, did it rain yesterday? When Bob tells you it was bright and sunny who are you going to believe? Bob, or the video footage of the storm?

That’s it for now. Stay tuned for part 2!