Loudmouth wrote:
quote:
That is why someone is judged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not "guilty beyond any doubt". Even the court realizes that we can not be 100% sure of anything. It is very unreasonable to claim that a video was doctored or that evidence was planted. However, it is not impossible. This is also why science is never 100% sure. For all we know, the fossils were all planted in their particular sediments by a bunch of trickster aliens. However, the reasonable assumption is that they ended up in those sediments through natural mechanisms.
Macroevolution is never ever claimed to be "the reasonable assumption."
No, macroevolution is "fact, fact, fact."
It is "as certain as gravity."
All who do not comport to these demands, not "reasonable assumptions," but demands can only be, in atheist-talk:
- a fundie
- a bible-thumper
- ignorant
- one who knows nothing about science
- someone who does not understand evolution
There is no need for atheists and biologists to explain the gaps in fossils, or DNA synthesis from basic chemicals, or the mechanisms of producing polypeptides with spaces of 10 to the 200th or 400th power. Just run for the door and hurl "findie" and "bible-thumper" behind you as you dodge the question. That's real *science*.