A friend of mine is a pretty die-hard Christian (shock horror, both of his parents are missionaries/vicars) and he often posts little sayings of some kind or another on Facebook, which I usually ignore. However, today he posted something that really irritated me for some reason:
"The more I look at science, the more in awe of God I become."
And just to make that worse, one of his Christian friends commented "Boom" as if he had made some kind of infallible argument. Somehow, I feel as though nothing I say will make any difference because they must be incredibly deluded already to believe that God just "invented" science. Basically, this is the guy who thinks he's a "modern and intelligent" Christian by saying that things like Noah's Ark are "just stories and aren't meant to be taken seriously by Christians". But if that is true, then why take ANY of the Bible seriously and where does he draw the line between stories and (what he believes is) the truth?
In the past I asked him and his friend where the evidence was. He claimed science (yes, seriously) helped prove Christianity and that Christianity was about "opening yourself" to it and believing, and then you "feel God" or whatever. How do you argue with someone like that??
What do you all say to religious people (not necessarily just Christians) who claim that science is just an invention of God? Is there a specific way to argue with someone who twists everything to awkwardly suit modern day thinking?
I already told you, it's called cherry picking. They pick some science they like, like modern technology that'll make their lives easier. But at the same time they then deny other, just as valid, science. Maybe not you but lots of your peers do it.
Oh yeah I do have the latest fancy gadgets! I use modern medicine when I get sick. Wait what? Evolution?! HAH no! You people and your overrated science! Gaaaawd is where it's at man! We know science isn't always trustworthy!
There's a reason these pricks watch the weather forecast instead of dancing for rain. They'll never admit it though.
Shitholes like Pakistan hate the west and anything civilized. Suggest evolution and you might get executed. But you'll still see them use the gifts of science when it suits them.
There is zero diference between "micro and macro" evolution. These are words made up by creationists to promote a view that has no basis. The mechanisms of evolution have no natural boundaries that could equate to species boundaries.
Jimminee freaking christmas, Rich, you don't know much about evolution AT ALL. There are fossil transitions and there is not a strain to prove it. It comes from studying the morphology of bones between different creatures. We can see over time the small changes that have occurred within species on scales of millions of years. It also comes from genetic studies and comparisons of living creatures. That's how we know the Red Panda is related more to a raccoon than a bear and that cows and manatees have a common ancestor.
Could a cow give birth to a horse. No, that's just stupid, but after a million years of the right environmental pressures, the ancestor of today's cows could become something more horse-like. Would it be a horse? No, it'd be an entirely new species. It's the same thing that happened to our ape ancestor. Over a few million years, some took to the plains and began to walk upright, others stayed in the trees. So today we have humans and other apes like gorillas, bonobos, chimps, and orangutangs. It's like comparing you to the great-great-great-grand child of your great-great-great-grand father's brother. You are still related, but distantly.
Also, here's a website showing some transitional fossils for humans: http://fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.de/2009/05/did-someone-ask-fo...
And here is Answersingenesis.com (a website that you quoted as being a good source) saying that you should avoid this argument, which is one of three that you have used and all three of those should be avoided.
The only reason I'm even arguing this point with you, despite the fact that it's obvious you haven't done your homework and you aren't likely to change your opinion and arguing for that purpose would just be wasting me time, is because the topic here is how to argue against a particular delusion. That the earth was created by a supernatural entity is a delusion. It is natural processes that have formed and shaped the universe as we know it over billions of years. This here is part of my argument against that delusion.
A cow doesn't become a horse
You are trolling now.
RE: "A cow doesn't become a horse, nor an ape a man." - I don't know how to break this to you gently, Richard, but a man IS an ape --
No one said a cow became a horse, but some dinosaurs DID become birds, and I am living proof!