[Fester Chugabrew]

It is becoming more and more obvious to me that for every theory and law the evolutionist espouses, he/she thereby contributes to proofs against their own assumptions, at least where origins, purpose, and design are concerned. I'm not sure how to put my finger on it . . . yet, but it sure is a magnificent irony. I believe someone has descibed it as similar to pagan religious assumptions about the gods and thunderbolts.

Furthermore, for all the talk about scientific method requiring predictability, they sure lose zeal for that idea when faced with a mass of gases that somehow came into being, exloded, and then brought about not only the universe as we know it but also scientists who can cogitate upon the same. Probability is a friend of true science, but it is certainly not a friend of evolutionists.

[Physicist]

Furthermore, for all the talk about scientific method requiring predictability, they sure lose zeal for that idea when faced with a mass of gases that somehow came into being, exloded, and then brought about not only the universe as we know it but also scientists who can cogitate upon the same.

That sure would be ridiculous, if that were the theory of the Big Bang, but of course it's not. You won't be in a position to debunk it until you are conversant with its most basic concepts.

The equivalent dismissal of Christianity would be, "there was this old man with a white beard, who then became God somehow, and who then somehow created the universe and then man."