The atheist’s defense of his/her absurd theories is always: deep time. As in, given enough time, the world would evolve to what we see today. This is equivalent to an elaborate fairy tale that they wish to be true. Has order ever evolved from chaos? Can they explain how a functioning organism - not to mention civilizations - can form by virtue of just existing for billions of years? Their arguments are extremely weak, yet anyone who challenges them is considered to be a dufus. Go figure.
s/b: a functioning oranism can exist by virtue of a predecessor having existed for billions of years.
post hoc ergo proptor hoc.
you lose.
Can you believe they are funded with our tax dollars to come up with this crap!
“The atheist’s defense of his/her absurd theories is always: deep time. As in, given enough time, the world would evolve to what we see today. This is equivalent to an elaborate fairy tale that they wish to be true. Has order ever evolved from chaos? Can they explain how a functioning organism - not to mention civilizations - can form by virtue of just existing for billions of years? Their arguments are extremely weak, yet anyone who challenges them is considered to be a dufus. Go figure.”
Niche say’s out of chaos comes order. Oh blow it out your a#@ Howard.
>>>The atheist’s defense of his/her absurd theories is always: deep time. As in, given enough time, the world would evolve to what we see today. Has order ever evolved from chaos? Can they explain how a functioning organism - not to mention civilizations - can form by virtue of just existing for billions of years? Their arguments are extremely weak, yet anyone who challenges them is considered to be a dufus. Go figure.
You mean deep time similarly to the way God exists, by virtue of always existing. The scientific process with its trial and error, demands of proof, and centuries of scientists of all nationalities and philosophical backgrounds but whose results though incomplete still verifiably line up in the same real world direction would seem to have more rigorous standards of proof then “I am that I am”.
Religion by definition being a matter of faith is a concept that cannot be empirically proven or disproven. Since nothing in science can disprove an ultimate supernatural agency’s credit for setting all this in motion, I don’t really grasp why a clearer understanding of the material processes of HOW is any threat to the honestly religious minded.
It might be more pertinent to the overall question to simply say render unto science what is science’s, and unto philosophy what is philosophy’s. (ie- when you have a 200 million year old fossil, your planet is older then 6000 years). FWIW the Catholic Church seems to see it precisely in this way. You know, the outfit put together by the Disciples of Jesus.
As for dufus’, sometimes the shoe fits. Especially for spammers indiscriminately flooding their blogcrap day after day after day.