What's the difference between the first sticker and the second? The second has legs, yes, but the primary difference is the spot that Jesus occupied is now replaced by Darwin.
Proponents of Darwinism/macroevolution try to claim that they are somehow above religion and above "faith." Instead, they think they rely on cold, hard facts. They never mention the great many leaps of faith that they themselves make. No one was there to see the beginning of the world, the beginning of life... yet many scientists are so sure about how it all began, and that it began without God. And where is the evidence of the thousands, if not millions, of transitional life forms that would have to have existed for life on the planet to evolve into it's current state?
So what facts do they really have to go on? As I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist points out, it takes at least as much faith to deny the existence of God as it does to believe it. Actually, the authors assert that it takes even more faith to hold to atheism.
Darwinism is ultimately just another religion with Charles Darwin as its holy leader. These bumper stickers are just so fitting...
I agree with you and have been debating this point for years with Darwinists as I like to call them. It's amazing how people try to play the "science" card with evolution. 1st off, all science can really do is say that something is prove enough things wrong to make a hypothesis about what might be the case. That's great, but it only holds true until it is proven wrong. And, the way scientists go about this process is via the scientific method in which they come up with a hypothesis, then observe, test, etc. Well, macro-evolution is neither observable nor testable, so it's simply not science. AND... it's a theory. Too many people don't understand that and present it as a fact. Unfortunately, claiming "science" when it comes to macro-evolution is contradictory to what science, by definition, is.
Thanks for the comment, Chris. I totally agree with you here, this is such a key point: "Well, macro-evolution is neither observable nor testable, so it's simply not science."
The odds of the human enzyme system evolving to its exact state now with no conflicts is 1 in 1 to the 40,000 power.
That is 1/ 40,000
1^
Atheists are the most faithful people I know of. And the most illogical. Another statistic that I found today that involves the number 38 million. That's how many lives have been extinguished since Roe vs Wade. I bring this up because its this hubris that mankind know so much spawns from logic such as atheism. Dont know why I bring it up. Something that has been heavy on my heart recently. Here are some more statistics I found that are fairly appalling. http://www.myamazingfacts.com/abortion-facts
Yeah, the evidence against Darwinism is so stunning! It's a wonder anyone still clings to the tattered remains of the theory of evolution.
As a scientist, I would like to clarify that science is a discipline which seeks to PROVE nothing. Rather, in scientific trials we test a null against a series of challenges to DISPROVE it. In other words, plausibility is a description applying only to a null that has withstood all attempts to disprove it. People seeking to PROVE evolution to be true are not scientists (Darwinian neophytes perhaps). The bottom line is that one never seeks to prove his/her own null as true. One raises a question and then tries to destroy it via a series of trials.
Trying to PROVE evolution to be true by attempting to DISPROVE God also provides a major problem, because how do you actually go about DISPROVING God.
Another major problem these so-called scientists face, has to do with the issue of REPEATABILITY. Once you have completed your trials and your null has survived, an independent scientist better darn well be able to come up with the same results.
Evolution has way to many variables to test as a single null, therefore proponents of evolution are forced to defend their position on the basis of - well faith - for lack of a better term. Ironic don't you think, considering most evolutionist would criticize me for my faith in God.
Thank you for clarifying that. I will definitely have to bear those thoughts in mind in future posts. Good stuff!
A scientist friend of mine once wrote this:
I'm a skeptic and a believer
I believe in pain and it's reliever
Down one too many today
and you might not see tomorrow
Better a life of joy than one in sorrow?
It all ends sadly either way really...
See in life you can be pushed or you can be pulled
To make it through, there's really just a few rules
Pinch yourself and try to see someone else
Put on their cloak and imagine how they would have felt
Always wonder but keep your wanderings in check
Logic is good but faith remains our best bet
The question as to whether faith and reason can co-exist in our modern world is one that boils down to this. Zealots of either extreme cloud the true intentions of what people geniunely want to know. A geniune inquiry as to how things work through our senses shouldn't turn someone into a blasphemer. At the same time, a keen search for live's meaning through the work and guidence of God doesn't make someone crazy or irrational. In living, we should strive for balance in faith and reason. A scientist can't go back and test every hypothesis of the literature he believes. He has to have faith and trust that those who did the work before him did it honestly. A modern christian was not alive to see Jesus Christ himself, nor do most proclaiming Christianity know how the Bible even came to be, but we trust that there is a God. A God who loves us and wants only the best for us. To me we should learn how to trust and constructively critique our 5 physical sense as well as our sense of faith.