Why do atheists and evolutionists take science as fact?

Question

except when science disproves their theory of spontaneous life and evolution. Is reason, logic, and scientific evidence their kryptonite? Why do atheists/evolutionists act like academic scholars when they are discussing their views with an average person, then crumble like a deck of cards when someone has the guts to challenge them and point out the many flaws in their argument? Does Dawkins not discuss what to do when severely overmatched in a theological/scientific debate? Is this fear of losing a debate why atheists/evolutionists resort to insults and threats of violence instead of debates? Is this why they become immature children and start talking about spaghetti monsters? Perhaps if I was as closed-minded to science as atheists are, and if I showed blind-faith in pseudo-scientific theories and if I intimidated anyone that disagreed with me by calling them idiots, then maybe I would be an atheist too. But, that would make me just another sheep in the flock, wouldn't it?

Answer 1

Science is only disproving evolution and the big bang and proving creation as Truth "In thebeginning God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it, on it , over it, beside it the list goes on!

Answer 2

You are mistaken if you suggest that scientists (or atheists) have a problem when others find flaws in their theory. Scientists KNOW that there are probably flaws in their theories.
Science is not a belief, the way religion is. It is a SEARCH. It is never-ending. It knows and acknowledges that there are times when it's right, and times that it's wrong. In the beginning of any scientific theory, there are going to be imperfections. You continue to search, study, and experiment. Eventually, you come to something that's pretty close to the truth. ANY scientist will tell you that any scientific theory or discovery still has ways that it can be improved, and certain aspects that will probably be found to be incorrect. Science is willing to admit if something it previously believed is proven wrong. Science is willing to admit it's imperfect. Science is adaptable.
Religion, on the other hand, just claims to be absolutely correct, with NO evidence, NO room for questioning, NO room for searching, and NO room for adapting. And it will NEVER, EVER admit that some aspect of its belief is wrong. (No matter HOW much proof is shown.)

Answer 3

You theists do the same when confronted with the overwhelming evidence to disprove the importance of believing in something you cannot see,
Case in point: you insulted us by calling us children.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a valid argument against the existence of God. He has as much proof of existence as your God does, only sounds more ridiculous. Because of this, it is easier to see how ridiculous the idea of God really is.
Can you prove the FSM DOESN'T exist?

Science does NOT selectively choose evidence for or against something. It is not biased. It attempts to find the TRUTH in the world through repeatable, peer reviewed experiments and discussions. This is what you are so fearful of- that the truth science finds does not correlate with YOUR "truth."

What could science POSSIBLY have to gain by making up such crazy ideas as evolution? Darwin was ridiculed for all his life. He didn't want to accept the idea that we may have shared an ancestor with the simpler primates, but he was forced to through the use of overwhelming evidence and logical reasoning.

God is a fantastic idea. I WISH he were true. To think that maybe there's more to my life than just a collection of molecular processes propagating genetic material over and over again and that maybe I might be able to live on some cloud or something after I die. It's a nice idea, but there is no evidence to support this as anything other than wishful thinking. So get your nose out of that ONE book and try sticking it in the other MILLIONS of actually PEER REVIEWED articles and journals that exist in this marvelous world we live in.

Answer 4

STOP IT RIGHT NOW.

You are getting us all wrong, probably intentionally. Science is the best explanation, at any given time, of observed phenomena. Those observed phenomena are facts; they happen whether or not we understand them, whether or not we deny their existence. (This should not be a difficult concept for Christians, btw.)

For many of these phenomena, our explanations are good enough that they deserve to be called facts as well. For others, our explanations need improvement -- and the scientific method is all about improving old explanations and sometimes finding completely new and better ones. Spontaneous generation was one such hypothesis. It was rather thoroughly discredited in 1668.

We've progressed quite a bit since then. Have you?

Answer 5

Admittedly, there are some atheists who resort to ad hominem attacks as their primary tactic in winning arguments. However, here again, atheists are not the sole practitioners of juvenile name calling. I have encountered numerous Christians, as well, who merely foist upon their opponents all manner of insults, and threats about eternal damnation. Many times they use, in their vitriolic statements, quotes directly from the Bible such as: “The fool says in his heart here is no God.”

Ultimately, both sides behave in an unbecoming manner when it comes to hotly contested issues like the existence of God, creationism vs. evolutionary theory, biblical inerrancy, and prolife vs. prochoice arguments. Atheists have people who behave in an uncouth matter, and many Christians are far from civil with their discourse with secularists.

As far as pseudoscientific theories that atheists subscribe to, you need to elaborate. You make many aspersions against atheists, without citing any examples. You, in other words, are just as guilty of making groundless claims as the godless people you denounce.

Furthermore, if anyone is guilty of adhering to pseudo scientific theories, it would be Christians more than atheists. Granted not all Christians subscribe to Creationism or Intelligent Design, but many do, and if any “discipline” can be referred to with the modifier “pseudo” it certainly is Creationism and Intelligent Design. Both concepts ar are merely shabby attempts, by the fundamentalist religious community, to give their blind faith in the writings of primitive men of antiquity, a pretense of scientific credibility.

Answer 6

I take facts as facts. Theory as theory (which in scientific terms, means I take them as facts, but am open to change my views should there be a valid reason for change). And nonsense as nonsense. And you're talking a lot of nonsense.

Science has not disproved evolution or 'spontaneous life'.

I'll happily debate with you - please present some evidence to back up your bold claims.

Answer 7

And precisely what has disproved the concept of abiogenesis?

If you're refering to the biological principle that life comes from life, then you're operating on outdated science. At one time, science believed that life-was-life and nonlife-was-nonlife, and never the twain should meet.

We now know that there are structures that exist on a spectrum between life and nonlife (such as virii).

So where's this disproof of abiogenesis? I've got a load of evidence that supports it just waiting to be thrown out with the slightest conclusive disproof.

Answer 8

Because it makes sense. Because I can see it, put my hands on it, etc. Because I'm not afraid to have someone else challenge the findings.. Because science will stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny or fall...remember cold water fusion?
No? Go read. But science doesn't collapse. Science is not afraid of finding the truth, wherever it leads. I could go on..but I'm sure others can pick up the argument better...

Answer 9

If you're really interested in learning about evolution so you can speak intelligently about it go to something like talkorigins.com. There you will find all of the questions about evolution answered.

See this is what I did when i didn't believe in the Bible, I read the Bible, and now it is very clear that the Bible is swiss cheese.

Answer 10

Why do you set up straw men to knock them down? Your post is a bunch of assertion, and name-calling. If you'd like a debate, come on over to www.iidb.org forums and propose one. It's possible I could be overmatched by a believer, but it's pretty clear no one's gonna get much of a contest from someone as hyperbolic as you.

Answer 11

where were dinosaurs in the bible, huh? tell me. and then there is the fact that people do come from single cell organisms. you won't find out about this until you are married but an egg and a sperm make one cell and after a mere 9 months a fully functional human is born. so there is your big bang dose for the afternoon.