Tuesday, August 9, 2011

mung and nullasalus, IDiot clones




8:32 pm


Of course, the Darwinists will proclaim this is what their theory predicted all along, and it does not in any way change Darwinian theory.

Naturally. And really, what couldn’t be stuffed into the ‘Darwinian theory’ skin? What’s important there is to dig in one’s heels and insist “This is all compatible with Darwinism!” no matter what the data, so long as the data looks true at the time. Throw in a full-blown hopeful monster situation and hey, if it looks true, we’ll just say that this is just a novel form of variation – entirely compatible with Darwinian theory.


That's pretty funny, considering that there are innumerable variations and interpretations of beliefs, and endless debates/arguments about the variations and interpretations of beliefs, WITHIN the "skin" of every religion.

Science, including evolutionary theory, is based on and concerned with evidence, and is constantly refined to fit the actual evidence. Religion, on the other hand, is based on subjective beliefs and massively variable and contradictory interpretations of those beliefs, and virtually anything can be conveniently "stuffed into" any religious "skin". No matter how insane or unrealistic an idea is, religious zombies will make it "entirely compatible" with their beliefs if it suits them.

Check this out: