Evolutionist Write Fairytales?

Question

fairytale

This is the definition of fairytale in the dictionary:
noun
1. a story about fairies; told to amuse children
2. an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse

It is just my opinion but the Timeline of Evolution
from Wikipedia reads more like an imaginative and fanciful tale designed to entertain children, than a scientific document whose contents are based on observable, measurable and verifiable results.

Where does science cross the line and become pure speculation and conjecture?

Here is some of the timeline:

Date Event
4600 Ma The planet Earth forms from the accretion disc revolving around the young Sun.
4533 Ma The planet Earth and the planet Theia collide, causing rings to form around the young Earth which last for millions of years until they coalesce to form the Moon, the gravitational pull of which stabilises the Earth's fluctuating axis of rotation, setting up the conditions for the formation of life.[1]
4100 Ma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

And I thought it was ONLY the Christians who hatefully and maliciously defended thier point.

Answer 1

Wow, I agree.
Well said.

Answer 2

Ok, lets turn the question on religion by changing one word in your question:

Where does RELIGION cross the line and become pure speculation and conjecture?

Isn't the belief that you hold in a higher being simply your own speculation and conjecture?

I do have to admit, you are much more educated than most of the other jebus freaks on Yahoo! answers and can actually make a valid argument instead of just saying something stupid like "because god said so"

Answer 3

You're an idiot. You'll have to trust me - I can't explain it to you, because you're an idiot. Call me hateful and malicious! Report me! You just don't get it.

It's really not possible to find common ground for a civilized discussion between religious freaks and educated people of science. The plane of thought is different, the quality of mind is different. Charles Bradlaugh could never agree with Charles Spurgeon (look em up), because Bradlaugh bases everything upon the mind, and Spurgeon merely remarks "The carnal mind is enmity against God."

Anyway, here's a project. Instead of regurgitating a bunch of ill-digested tripe you got from your pastor or whomever about how evolution is a "fairy tale," why don't you try developing your critical faculty and then applying yourself to serious, honest, legitimate study of the questions at hand, without prejudice.

The conjectures of science have arisen from this sort of programme. The wild mythologies of religion are little more than the arbitrary accidents of time and clime. If somebody set out to investigate nature with an open mind, and his researches led him to the conclusion that, e.g., a 2,000-years-dead magical carpenter was the "son of god," whatever that means, then I might be persuaded to persue a similar course of study to see if I reached a similar conclusion.

Answer 4

So what is wrong with it? I mean, just posting something and saying "That's wrong" doesn't make it wrong or a "fairytale". Hell, I wish life were that easy.... that I could live a simple/easy life with all the Truth I want while saying "That's wrong" on the things I don't like and it would just be "wrong" because I said so.

Do you have some other info that can be proven to the point that it would prove what you have posted is, indeed, wrong? Not just speculation or opinion.... Do you understand how they even come up with this type of information to begin with? If so, maybe then you can pinpoint what was done wrong in how they obtained it.

Answer 5

Most children couldn't follow 1/16 of what is talked about in earth science, so it being a story told to amuse children doesn't wash.

The formation of the earth according to science only seems implausible to those who have no concept of physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics and most of the sciences. Instead of saying "I don't believe evolution" what should be said is "I don't understand the concepts you are using" That would be far closer to the truth of the matter.

Answer 6

I don't believe I've ever heard a fariy tale for children use the words "coalesce" or "axis of rotation" . Did you disect your whole science book in this manner, or just this part? Is Gravity a fairy tale? How about the laws of physics? Maybe we should rename science class "the world according to the brothers grimm"


moron.

Answer 7

Considering we have significant geological and lunar evidence to support the impact formation of the moon theory, no, it's not fanciful. And the name of the other protoplanet, Theia, is perfectly logical consider it created the moon -- Theia is the Titan who gave birth to Selene, the Moon-goddess, in Greek Mythology.

You might want to brush up on your astrophysics and geology before you try to tackle Theia. There are opposing theories from the impact theory, just none that really have the evidence the impact theory has.

Answer 8

>>Why might want to technology be constrained to naturalistic motives somewhat than logical motives?<< What you're suggesting isn't logical. that is depending in 3 logical fallacies. the first is the Argument From lack of know-how, which states that, considering we do not understand how we developed (regardless of the reality that scientists and maximum knowledgeable persons understand, although in case you do not) then we would want to were created. the 2d is the Argument From Incredulity - considering i don't think that shall we've developed, then we ought to no longer have. In both cases, you're using a lack of info to argue a level, somewhat than putting forth helpful info. The third logical fallacy is the pretend Dichotomy. you in common words enable for 2 opportunities - that we developed, or we were created by technique of God (specifically, the God that you're taking position to position self belief in). by technique of flattening evolution, you imagine you may coach your factor. reality would not spoil down into binaries this properly, regardless of the reality that. There can be a third, fourth, or millionth determination that we've not even seen yet. back, you're not any further putting forth any helpful info on your position. we do not *understand* that they weren't designed, yet we do no longer have any info that they were, and the info that we *do* have helps the organic formation and progression of existence. We do in basic terms not see any of the hallmarks of a designed merchandise, previous complexity, which all of us understand can upward push up in non-designed structures. in case you want to make a case for being designed, you want to positioned forth certainly info. All you've performed so some distance is attempt to take down one among a probably countless type of possibilities, and bypass off your man or woman lack of know-how as understand-how.

Answer 9

This to me does not sound like a fairy tale.

And God said, let there be light, I'll create the world in seven days, make a man out of dirt, pull a rib from him to make a woman...

That sounds like fairy tales. Fairy tales do not require an ounce of physical evidence or proof to back them up, they simply "are" and we aren't to question them. We don't question why Little Red Riding Hood listens to the wolf - a wolf she's never met - and takes the shortcut through the forest. We know that if she didn't there wouldn't be a story. Likewise, if we questioned how God created humans from dirt, there wouldn't be a STORY.

And thence arise your athiests and non believers.

)O(

Answer 10

And the bible say the earth is supported on pillars, with 4 corners

2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

the world is set upon pillars?

Answer 11

So you think a scientific explanation which has evidence that supports it is more of a fairytale than "Some supreme being that we have no physical evidence for, created the sun, moon, stars, people and animals in seven days"?