Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Conjur,

Have/Will scientists try to play with the DNA of the chimps to see what kind of creatures they can make?

Sort of a forced evolution? They aren't humans, so we can play with their DNA and stem cells right?

perhaps create a monkey with four a$$es

We already have an ass of a chimp in the White House.

One can see rapid effects of mutations by looking at the mutated frogs up in, say, Minnesota. If all frogs were affected as such, certain long-lasting traits would be seen in the future generations.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
intelegent [sic] design theory on the other hand...is complete and utter tripe

You forgot to end your sentence.

i respect your faith in beliving that, though scientificly you can't prove or disprove it, just as you can't prove or disprove evolution at all.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

so why the faith in evolution, which is an un-testable theory?

Faith. I don't know that I won't fly out into space when I get out of bed in the morining, but I trust I won't. The same thing with evolution. The theory is just inferences based on similarly reliable concepts that prove out to be true every day. Science is based on the notion that everything has a natural explanation and the knowledge that massive numbers of what were once mysteries have fallen to its insights. Testable observations and a spectacular success rate that creates modern civilization generate scientific faith, a flexible dynamic and growing kind of faith.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The theory is just inferences based on similarly reliable concepts that prove out to be true every day. Science is based on the notion that everything has a natural explanation and the knowledge that massive numbers of what were once mysteries have fallen to its insights. Testable observations and a spectacular success rate that creates modern civilization generate scientific faith, a flexible dynamic and growing kind of faith.

1.) your to dammed reasonable to be Moonie.. i think you thought you where posting under another name .

2.) Science isn't based on the idea that we can understand everything, Hinesburg uncertainty is a good example, what the "forces" of our universe exactly are is another, rather sciences is based on the idea that we should base what we use as fact on what can be observed tested and repeated and that what we use as fact is only fact until it's disproved.

Don't you find that a dogmatic adherence to any scientific theory only leads to greater ignorance?

Hell, dogmatic adherence to scientific laws such as Newtonian physics would have kept us ignorant.

 

[dgevert]

Don't you find that a dogmatic adherence to any scientific theory only leads to greater ignorance?

Think about what you're saying. Maybe we shouldn't "dogmatically adhere" so much to gravity, too, while we're at it.

Seriously, no scientists are dogmatically adhering to evolution. That's why there's still research being done in the field of evolutionary biology. There are still questions that need to be worked out, they're just not the ones your preacher told you are "problems."

If there was scientific evidence against evolution, it would be analyzed and either refuted or accepted on its merits. Right now, there isn't any evidence against evolution. The inability of you fundamentalist Christians to accept this reality is not science's problem!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Think about what you're saying. Maybe we shouldn't "dogmatically adhere" so much to gravity, too, while we're at it.

we shouldn't! it doesn't apply in a nutonian way in the center of a black hole.

Seriously, no scientists are dogmatically adhering to evolution.

i disagree, those with a vested interest in having faith in it will never let go of it.

The inability of you fundamentalist Christians to accept this reality is not science's problem!

huh? plenty of problems with evolution, the need for genetic leaps os one the lack of any transitional fossils is another.

not that I don't think it makes sense and will accept it as such till we've got a better scientific theory.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
we shouldn't! it doesn't apply in a nutonian way in the center of a black hole.

I don't think specific, specialized situations are in any way applicable to the situation here...

i disagree, those with a vested interest in having faith in it will never let go of it.

According to who, your numbskull preacher?

huh? plenty of problems with evolution, the need for genetic leaps os one the lack of any transitional fossils is another.

#1, you don't understand genetics and how DNA codes for embryonic development. Research into this area has already shown how minor changes in the genetic code can produce morphological differences.

#2, the "lack of transitional fossils" claim is yet another evangelical creationist LIE.

not that I don't think it makes sense and will accept it as such till we've got a better scientific theory.

Just so long as you realize that ID is and never will be a scientific theory, much less a better one.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Seriously, no scientists are dogmatically adhering to evolution.

i disagree, those with a vested interest in having faith in it will never let go of it.

*lol*

You really don't understand scientists.

We have a vested interest in getting our theories published, not supporting those of long dead scientists. You don't get jobs or grants by confirming the old; you get them by doing something new.

You should watch us pounce on the slightest experimental deviation from theory. The moment an experiment finds the slightest deviation from theory (like the top quark mass being 3 std deviations away from predicted value), hundreds of scientists will begin writing papers attempting to work out a new theory about it. One of my physicist friends illustrated the talk about his theory explained that deviation with an ambulance-chasing scientist in parody of lawyers, because he was competing with so many alternatives that day at the conference.

 

[piasabird]

Not all Cells reproduce themselves exactly. For instance Cancer is not an exact duplication but is thought to be caused by damaged DNA that goes haywire producing ill effects and not good effects. In the real world radiation is more likely to cause skin cancer or other abnormalities. Also Stem Cells can produce a wide range of various types of cells to produce bone, muscle, brain, organs, etc. So the notion that a cell can only produce itself is in itself a flawed supposition.

All this aside the genetic makeup of a higher life form like a Dog or a man or say a tiger or a monkey is so complex that the complexity in itself causes variations that we can see. Some examples are height, weight, sex, eye color and hair color. One would have to admit that there are many variations within the Humans on the earth today; however, we all appear to be humans. This variation in species actually creates a habitat that is varied enough to overcome our environmental variables. It is when our genetic pool becomes too specialized that humans become more sensitive to changes in our environment.

I think survival of the fittest is a likely occurrence in nature. What is not adapted to survive, ceases to exist. However, this is not exactly what one would call evolution. Just because some species is extinct, it does not mean it evolved into anything.

Evolution as a science is flawed. Scientists would like you to believe that Man and all the animals on the earth originated from some first initial form of life and just evoved to all the life that we have on the earth today. This is statistically a very small probability. It is absurd.

 

[MadRat]

Cancer has more to do with out of control processes than damaged processes. What is turned on in the cell simply cannot turn off. Therefore cancer, as a source of mutagen, is unlikely to be the birth of new species. And I think you be hard pressed not to confuse the functions of specialized cells (-clasts, -plasts, -masts, etc.) and those found in stem cell. Stem cells cannot produce any other cell, only the types it is programmed to become. And some specialized cells have inherent ability to swap themselves into other specialized cells a limited number of times. The flexible nature of stem cells is their allure to science, not some super-duper mystery. Quite frankly their are dozens of stem cell types with some of them sharing little in common with others. The label 'stem cell' is more of a generalized category than a definitive label.

Survival of the fittest, as it was originally proposed, never sustained itself under observation. Any species that dominated found itself most vulnerable to fluctuations and new species - even otherwise weaker - displaced their population to the point where another took over dominance. The fluctuations of too many unrelated factors holds more sway to survival than being particularly fit or not.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot


This whole passage is intellecutally bankrupt. First, it shows your ignorance about phylogenetic trees. Ribosomal RNA (along with other DNA testing) testing has shown that there are three fundementally distinct branches of life. The Eubacteria (bacteria like e. coli, pseudomonas, etc etc), the Archea (usually extreme environment livers) and the Eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi). As domains, the Eukaryotes and Archea are much more similar than the Eubacteria. The various kingdoms, Plants, Animals, Fungi are mere offshoots off the Eukaryote branch. There is very little genetic difference, at this level when viewing the domains, between plants, animals and fungi.

LUCA (last universal common ancestory) was probably a bag of DNA surronded by a phosolipid bilayer preforming glycolysis and making some sort of NTP. This can be inferred because every living organism has DNA as it's genetic material, has a phosolipid bilayer of some sort, preforms glycolysis as the first step (or only) in metabolism and uses an NTP as a carrier of chemical energy. What came before that, it is really anyones guess.

My suggestion to you is to take a university level course in Evolution to understand the nuances of the theory and evolution refutes many of these strawmen arguments.

Exactly, nice to see something posted that's actually right. But this goes both ways and the sad thing is that alot of you who trust the theory and scientific process make alot of errors yourself (about evolutionary theory). This only opens up room for more attack. While everyone adamantly claims that evolution is not abiogenesis, panspermia, ... whatever. The whole stigma with evolution is that is was and still is being used as a way to attack the exixtence of a God. BTW intelligent design doesn't simply refer to some fundamentalist veiwpoint of creation. It is surfaced quite regularly among evolutionists themselves as a way to describe the sequence of events as they have unfolded. If you want someone to truly embrace your veiwpoint (especially when it is a scientifically based one) attacking their belief in a God isn't the answer (cheap shots about fairies, big man in the sky... you know who you are). Those who proved the Earth was round, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun were initially called blasphemers and heretics but people got over it. Sad fact is that the majority of people (Christian, Muslim, or athiest...) have a hard time dealing with change. So don't kick them in the pants and then call them ignorant losers but allow them to the opportunity to change (comes easier when your guard isn't up). Besides most of you still have your pants in a knot over climate change (okay so that was abit of a cheap shot too ).

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Think about what you're saying. Maybe we shouldn't "dogmatically adhere" so much to gravity, too, while we're at it.

we shouldn't! it doesn't apply in a nutonian way in the center of a black hole.

Seriously, no scientists are dogmatically adhering to evolution.

i disagree, those with a vested interest in having faith in it will never let go of it.

The inability of you fundamentalist Christians to accept this reality is not science's problem!

huh? plenty of problems with evolution, the need for genetic leaps os one the lack of any transitional fossils is another.

not that I don't think it makes sense and will accept it as such till we've got a better scientific theory.

How much science have you done? I am just asking because you seem fairly certain about what you believe to be true despite the fact that you are basically wrong in everything that you've stated.

Oh, and it is disgraceful to spell people's names incorrectly. It is Newton, Heisenburg, etc.

Firstly let's start with your laughable interpretation of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. You said:

Science isn't based on the idea that we can understand everything, Hinesburg uncertainty is a good example, what the "forces" of our universe exactly are is another, rather sciences is based on the idea that we should base what we use as fact on what can be observed tested and repeated and that what we use as fact is only fact until it's disproved.

This clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what Heisenburg's Principle is or what it means. It is not some psuedo-intellectual crap about how little we can ever know about the world. It is a very definite mathematical description. It is about the problem of trying to know both a particles momentum and location at the same time. It was originally about the solution to the position of an electron, and is fundamental to our knowledge of electron density clouds (otherwise know as orbitals, such as the s, p, d, and f orbitals known to chemistry majors everywhere).

Heisenburg shows that x (the position) time p (the momentum) = some definite quantity (something about Planck's constant I believe). Because the x and the p are on the same side of the equation they are known as inversely related, ie, when one goes up the other goes down. This is a feature of mathematics. It is called the "inverse relationship" and is always true of all mathematical equation.

So basically as our certainty of x (the position) goes up it naturally follows that our certainty of p (the momentum) goes down.


It's science, done by real scientists, and it works. It's not magic, it's not psychobabble, and I highly recommend you not comment on thing about which you know nothing.


As for evolution your knowledge is equally pathetic. Evolution isn't true because it is some conspiracy of leftist biology professors - it is true because it is how the world works, it has explanatory and predictive power. It is true because it is science.


And lastly there is no such thing as "dogmatic adherence to any scientific theory."

But trying to pretend that Creation Science is some honest contender with evolution, or that evolution is on shaky scientific ground, is nonsense. That is dogmatic belief. In fact it is belief despite the evidence, not because of it.

 

[artikk]

I DON'T believe in evolution but I love biology and genetics and believe in them. Evolution has nothing to do with those topics.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: russianpower
I DON'T believe in evolution but I love biology and genetics and believe in them. Evolution has nothing to do with those topics.

Evolution has "nothing to do" with biology? Yup, especially since it's almost like biology's unifying theory.

You're not very bright.

 

[0marTheZealot]

^

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. The ignorance, denial, and outright lying in this thread is outstanding.

If you "*don't* give two shits", then WTF are you posting in this thread for and why are you so emotional about it?

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I guess. :roll:

Anyway, I think modern science is just as good a religion as any other.

I think you are confusing the kind of faith that water will run down hill with religious faith that believes there is, say, a god. To conflate these two is reasoning falsely, I think.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

But tests don't occur after dogma has been established and ruled unchallengeable.

There is nothing more amusing than people who think they know they answer to "the question of life, the universe, and everything". You don't, we don't, no living human does. Get over yourself. If you think that our knowledge of the evolution of species millions of years ago is the same as our ability to witness water running down a hill today, then you have turned science into a religion, and have faith by believing in things that no one could possibly know for fact, or can even test. No truly objective scientist would ever make such a comparison.
The worst thing about this attitude being represented is that it stymies and discredits science. But hey, it's the state religion in this country, so one better not speak out too loudly, eh?

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. The ignorance, denial, and outright lying in this thread is outstanding.

If you "*don't* give two shits", then WTF are you posting in this thread for and why are you so emotional about it?

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I guess. :roll:

Anyway, I think modern science is just as good a religion as any other.

I think you are confusing the kind of faith that water will run down hill with religious faith that believes there is, say, a god. To conflate these two is reasoning falsely, I think.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

But tests don't occur after dogma has been established and ruled unchallengeable.

There is nothing more amusing than people who think they know they answer to "the question of life, the universe, and everything". You don't, we don't, no living human does. Get over yourself. If you think that our knowledge of the evolution of species millions of years ago is the same as our ability to witness water running down a hill today, then you have turned science into a religion, and have faith by believing in things that no one could possibly know for fact, or can even test. No truly objective scientist would ever make such a comparison.
The worst thing about this attitude being represented is that it stymies and discredits science. But hey, it's the state religion in this country, so one better not speak out too loudly, eh?

As long as you understand that it's not the scientists that are looking at evolution as some kind of secular dogma. It's atheists who try to prove to the rest of the world that the bible is wrong and god doesn't exist.

But this happens with everything. Some people will cling to it and not loosen their grip for anything. You can't discredit evolutionary theory because of the few that overestimate it's findings.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: russianpower
I DON'T believe in evolution but I love biology and genetics and believe in them. Evolution has nothing to do with those topics.

If evolution (the process by which outside factors and random mutation affects a being's genetic makeup, eventually altering the biology of the species) has nothing to do with genetics and biology, perhaps you could clue us in as to what evolution does deal with?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
As long as you understand that it's not the scientists that are looking at evolution as some kind of secular dogma. It's atheists who try to prove to the rest of the world that the bible is wrong and god doesn't exist.

But this happens with everything. Some people will cling to it and not loosen their grip for anything. You can't discredit evolutionary theory because of the few that overestimate it's findings.

Yes, I understand that quite well, except for some few scientists seeking to profit. I'm glad that someone in this thread was finally able to understand what I've been saying. Science and God are not incompatible, and no amount of idiot ranting from the atheists can change that. I don't say that from faith, but from the knowledge that science does not and cannot disprove the existence of God. You cannot logically disprove the existence of something that you cannot prove exists in the first place. In the meantime, the universe is, and what we may believe occurred thousands, millions, or billions of years ago can never be more than informed speculation and theory. The factual part of evolution is that we can witness it now (to an extent), not that we know for fact that it occurred millions of years ago, as whatever occurred millions of years can never be "fact" to us now.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. The ignorance, denial, and outright lying in this thread is outstanding.

If you "*don't* give two shits", then WTF are you posting in this thread for and why are you so emotional about it?

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I guess. :roll:

Anyway, I think modern science is just as good a religion as any other.

I think you are confusing the kind of faith that water will run down hill with religious faith that believes there is, say, a god. To conflate these two is reasoning falsely, I think.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

But tests don't occur after dogma has been established and ruled unchallengeable.

I can't think of any scientific theory that's reached that status. Natural selection has gone through an abundance of tests in recent decades due to expanding access to genetic data, and even gravity has experienced its most precise test ever a decade or so ago and LIGO is working to test for gravitational waves predicted by General Relativity.

But hey, it's the state religion in this country, so one better not speak out too loudly, eh?

The closest thing the US has to a state religion is Christianity, the religion that's inserted in its Pledge of Allegiance, currency, coinage, laws, and in every major politician's speeches.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. The ignorance, denial, and outright lying in this thread is outstanding.

If you "*don't* give two shits", then WTF are you posting in this thread for and why are you so emotional about it?

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I guess. :roll:

Anyway, I think modern science is just as good a religion as any other.

I think you are confusing the kind of faith that water will run down hill with religious faith that believes there is, say, a god. To conflate these two is reasoning falsely, I think.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

But tests don't occur after dogma has been established and ruled unchallengeable.

There is nothing more amusing than people who think they know they answer to "the question of life, the universe, and everything". You don't, we don't, no living human does. Get over yourself. If you think that our knowledge of the evolution of species millions of years ago is the same as our ability to witness water running down a hill today, then you have turned science into a religion, and have faith by believing in things that no one could possibly know for fact, or can even test. No truly objective scientist would ever make such a comparison.
The worst thing about this attitude being represented is that it stymies and discredits science. But hey, it's the state religion in this country, so one better not speak out too loudly, eh?

You are setting up an unreasonable criterion for knowledge. Basically you are saying if you don't witness an event directly, than one can never know the cause of that event as a fact. To the most extreme arguement this may be true, but in practice this is a irrelevent arguement.
For the most part, evolution occurs on a timescale too slow to witness directly, however this does not mean one can never prove it to have occurred. Compare this to our legal system and rules of evidence, reasonable doubt, etc. We can convict a person for a crime even if the crime does not have a witness because we can use an organized and logical system to gather evidence (just as in science.) No one may see the stabbing, but if we can find the bloody knife, establish opportunity, find matching fingerprints of a suspect and corroborate with other forensic evidence, we are safe to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that suspect commited the crime. many many men have been put to death for less evidence for their guilt than exists for evolution.

The arguements denying evolution to me sound like that Chappelle skit where Dave is asked onto a jury and is questioned what evidence it would take for him to convict R. Kelly: "I would need a video tape of him pissing on the girl, while he was holding up 2 forms of state ID verified by a present police officer, and singing, while his grandmother was there to establish ID, and five of my buddies watching and taking notes." "Mr Chapelle, isn't that a bit excessive?", "Noooo...My doubts are very reasonable...."

Secondly, what scientific organization has ever ruled a a scientific principal "dogmatic and unchallengable"? Aside from no one having such authority, the whole idea is antithetical to basic scientific principals. To me, that is the beauty of science, the knowledge system is very dynamic and nothing is above challenge. The things we understand are always changing (even gravity eg) as our knowledge expands and our ability to discover and measure things improves. For the most part the base of our understanding remains, but the details and pecularities of that understanding evolves as new discoveries are made. This can be said for both gravity and evolution, both are not fully understood, but make no mistake both do exist and aer occuring right now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

Originally posted by: russianpower
I DON'T believe in evolution but I love biology and genetics and believe in them. Evolution has nothing to do with those topics.

If evolution (the process by which outside factors and random mutation affects a being's genetic makeup, eventually altering the biology of the species) has nothing to do with genetics and biology, perhaps you could clue us in as to what evolution does deal with?

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jack31081
As long as you understand that it's not the scientists that are looking at evolution as some kind of secular dogma. It's atheists who try to prove to the rest of the world that the bible is wrong and god doesn't exist.

But this happens with everything. Some people will cling to it and not loosen their grip for anything. You can't discredit evolutionary theory because of the few that overestimate it's findings.

Yes, I understand that quite well, except for some few scientists seeking to profit. I'm glad that someone in this thread was finally able to understand what I've been saying. Science and God are not incompatible, and no amount of idiot ranting from the atheists can change that. I don't say that from faith, but from the knowledge that science does not and cannot disprove the existence of God. You cannot logically disprove the existence of something that you cannot prove exists in the first place. In the meantime, the universe is, and what we may believe occurred thousands, millions, or billions of years ago can never be more than informed speculation and theory. The factual part of evolution is that we can witness it now (to an extent), not that we know for fact that it occurred millions of years ago, as whatever occurred millions of years can never be "fact" to us now.

Look at the problem though Vic.

The Religious radicals refuse to allow any leeway for Science to exist, only God's way.

Most Scientists are not closed minded to the point of saying unequivably (sp?) that God does not exist.

Now you have a situation that Politicians have sided with the Religious radicals because their numbers have increased so much so they need the numbers for power.

Not looking good for Science.

This is what plunged the planet into the Dark Ages a few Centuries ago and headed there again.

History sure does repeat itself. Wonder if that is Scientific or God doing it???

 

[Vic]

Dave, if "religious radicals" didn't allow any leeway for science, and only allowed God's way, then they wouldn't drive cars, watch TV, use computers, or want and use modern healthcare (i.e. like the Amish).
Your argument is laughable. As always.

The problem you internet geeks have is that you think I'm attacking science and evolution. Not so at all. I "accept" science and theory of evolution and have said as much repeatedly in this thread. What I am doing is attacking you and your belief in science as something other than what it actually is. So I'm not saying that any scientific organization has ever ruled a scientific principle as "dogmatic and unchallengable". What I am saying that you have taken evolution and ruled it as "dogmatic and unchallengable" because you need that crutch of faith to justify your rabid atheism, just like some Christians need creationism and a literal translation of the Bible as a crutch of faith to belive in God. Science hasn't done that, you have. Get that through your thick skulls, eh?

 

[0marTheZealot]

The only thing in science that I think is approaching dogma status are the laws of thermodynamics. Other than that, science is pretty much still testing nearly every hypothesis out there. Gravity is still being tested as a theory.

 

[Fx02]

Originally posted by: Vic
Dave, if "religious radicals" didn't allow any leeway for science, and only allowed God's way, then they wouldn't drive cars, watch TV, use computers, or want and use modern healthcare (i.e. like the Amish).
Your argument is laughable. As always.

The problem you internet geeks have is that you think I'm attacking science and evolution. Not so at all. I "accept" science and theory of evolution and have said as much repeatedly in this thread. What I am doing is attacking you and your belief in science as something other than what it actually is. So I'm not saying that any scientific organization has ever ruled a scientific principle as "dogmatic and unchallengable". What I am saying that you have taken evolution and ruled it as "dogmatic and unchallengable" because you need that crutch of faith to justify your rabid atheism, just like some Christians need creationism and a literal translation of the Bible as a crutch of faith to belive in God. Science hasn't done that, you have. Get that through your thick skulls, eh?

Can I answer for him? Good.

I think what he meant is that they do not allow any leeway, but still know how to enjoy a good convenience that Science created. After all God did create man, gave him wisdom, whom inturn created the machines, right? It's a classic case of "what's good for me"

What I believe, and I think anyone with some sensibility would too, is that we would keep an open mind about everything. It is very possible that everything we see was created by and for a reason, and what science has explained so far is just the unraveling of that work. It is also very possible everything just came together as a coincidence, and we're just slowly but surely finding out how that came to be.

Just think of the ancient times, when people actually believe there are fire god, earth demons, and revered every natural phenomenons as supernatural. I'm sure there are still people that worship fire gods, but you know better because science can explain that there are no fire gods... Now, I'm not saying that a God did not create the fire, but if there was one, it's not the God of propaganda that the people of this country are trying to push.

 

[cquark]

What I am doing is attacking you and your belief in science as something other than what it actually is. So I'm not saying that any scientific organization has ever ruled a scientific principle as "dogmatic and unchallengable". What I am saying that you have taken evolution and ruled it as "dogmatic and unchallengable" because you need that crutch of faith to justify your rabid atheism, just like some Christians need creationism and a literal translation of the Bible as a crutch of faith to belive in God. Science hasn't done that, you have. Get that through your thick skulls, eh?

Why are you attacking me when I didn't say and don't believe any of those things? I haven't read every post, but I don't recall anyone else saying what you're attacking either. If someone did, go argue with them, instead of making blanket assumptions about what other posters believe.