Rambling of a Normal Guy: Student vs Professor, Evolution vs Creationism, Make believe vs reality.

Cthulhu doesn't give two shits about Evolution or Creationism...

Welcome to another addition of ramblings of a normal guy. This is my special column where I go off on wild rants complaining about the things that happen and effect my (and ours) every day life. Because of the excessive amounts of stupidity that will be featured, a large amount of inappropriate language will most likely be used. Also expect a large helping of calling out and "I don't give a crap". Rated M for mature, and read at  your own risk. 

For the purpose of this blog little c christian refers to "fake look at me cry" religious people. Christian with a big C refers to people who actually follow Christ.  

As anyone who have ever written a blog, drafted newspapers or envisioned novels can tell you, the Muse can be a cruel mistress sometimes. One moment she is with you, dancing with ideas and words, the next she is leaving you cold and alone. Stories, so many and faster than fingers could type, are now replaced with nothing but barren fields, devoid of all life. How can I update this blog, how can I keep it current if nothing comes to me? What shall happen if I never hear the good song of the Muse again? I know the source true, but what good does it do me? When Fred Phelps was excommunicated from the WBC and then finally passed away, the WBC really just doesn't matter anymore. Oh sure, they will try to attention whore still, but honestly, their time has come and pass, it's as if they have all passed away. The source of my ramblings was gone, and so was any ambition to write. But thankfully, I think the spell might have finally been lifted, if only for a time.

And it's all thanks to Facebook.


For anyone who's spent any time of Facebook, and who hasn't at this point, you will almost immediately notice just about anything can be found there. You can find thousands of pictures of cats and hundreds of photos of meals, of friends and family, of attention whoring and agendas that make your head spin. And yes, I freely admit in taking part of all of it, because... well what else are we going to do in our work time? Work? Yea screw that! One such post came in the form of the one in the million upon million posts about the whole evolution vs creationism debate. Yes I know, I'm sick of the bullshit surrounding it as well, but the thing will just not die. Now as for this post, it wasn't anything new, I've already seen it a number of times from a couple of years back, not to mention a few different variations, but yet today, something clicked.

TRUE STORY!

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student :Yes
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smell your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

If you haven't seen this variation before, you will still recognize the point of the story. It was written for the sole purpose of making people of faith feel good about themselves for outsmarting a professor of science. Because science for some reason is the evil devil of the world now... In any case, if presented in a non-dickish way, it substance of the story really shouldn't matter. If people of faith want to feel good about being part of this or that faith, they should! I would seriously wonder and worry about said person if said person DIDN'T feel good about being part of their faith. Note: not talking about attention whores here.  On the same token, if people want to feel good about science, then go for it! Science has given us a LOT of cool things, one of which I am using to write and post this blog. So with all this feel goodness going about, what could be the source of my rant? The utter bullshittness (that's a word right) and stupidity of the post. Did you notice it? Well let's break this down.
  

Section 1: Is God real, and if so what alignment is he?
Who's the idiot: Both of them

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student :Yes
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)

In the first section of this post, we are lead to believe that the professor representing science, is winning a debate with a student who represents faith. Side note here, depending on your variation the professor could also be a Atheist. The first act of stupidity is cleverly written to be done by the professor.  The instance is by assuming "all powerful" is the same as "controlling everything". Just because one has the power to do something, does not mean they could or should do it. Also just because one does or does not do something, does not automatically mean they are good or evil. Just because something dies, does not mean some cosmic deity must be blamed for it. In fact blaming "x reason of death or bad thing" on a deity is just as bad as saying "Satan made me do it.".

Now for this student. While I understand their silence is for the purpose of making the faith victory later all more stunning, I would seriously question if the student is of any faith. Said student claims to have faith (and even "wins" at the end) and all the student can do is stand there like a bleeding idiot? Would it really be that hard to say "God gave us free will, and we are responsible for ourselves and the evil we bring into the world"?  The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the student seriously believes God controls everything, thereby making his God (like it or not) the most evil thing ever in the history of everything. Good going there ace...

Section Two: Because Science said so
Who's the idiot: The professor

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smell your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Depending on the how and why this conversation was taking place, the professor is probably completely justified in what he is doing. Chances are (as many of us have seen many many times) the professor was put into a position where a uppity religious students fell back on the "it happened because God said so" argument. With respect to religion, you do not belong in a science classroom. People also did not pay good money to attend a religion rant in a science class room. If this happened in a class I paid for, I would be in the students face telling them to fuck off already. Religion has it's own place, and that is it's place of worship, at home, in faith schools and in the hearts of people who keep it. Religion is, and will always be, a close personal relationship with the divine, and what ever you may call that divine. Science is not of religion, and religion is not of science. Now even with this understood, the way the professor went about it was not very nice, nor was it professional.

Is there sickness in the world?
~ Yes, of course there is and SCIENCE gives us explanations on how each of them came into being.

Is there immorality in the world?
~ Yes but this is based on the person, situation and perception of the time and society.

Is there Hatred in the world?
~ Hatred is a emotion experienced by humanity that can be born from any number of sources. While granted, one of these sources can and is religion, that doesn't make it the singular fault of religion.

Is there ugliness in the world?
Beauty, like most anything else, is in the eye of the beholder. 

The professor continue on to say "according to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist". While entirely true, there is no physical evidence of any deity figure(s), science also says that lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. Science also does not have a problem with faith, mostly because a person's religion is their own. What science DOES have a problem with, and is often misinterpreted by "religious" people, is the notion that science is out to destroy religion. True science is out there for science, to learn grow and adapt.

It's also because of that last line we can tell this never really happened.

Section Three: So.... winter isn't coming?
Who's the idiot: Student

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Working in customer service, and with people in general, I interact with this type of people a lot. The type of self important douche bags who think they know everything and use silly word plays as some ploy to seem more enlightened than they really are. Honestly it because they are so fucking stupid they can't understand shit. Word games are honestly nothing more than a waste of everyone's time. Cold isn't real and is just a lack of heat? Then is red not real because it's just lacking all the other colors? Cold isn't real because it's just a word we use to describe something? Then I guess nothing is real because every fucking word in our language is used to describe something. Hot is used to describe something of high temperature, cold is for low temperature. Fire is an example of something that is burning while ice is an example of water that is frozen. We can measure levels of heat and cold by way of temperature. But if measuring something is so important to being true, then since the student's deity can not be measured...

 

Section four: The night is a lie...
Who's the idiot: Student

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Darkness, the polar opposite to brightness, is understood to be an absence of visible light. It is also the appearance of black in a colored space. Humans are unable to distinguish color when either light or darkness predominate. In conditions of insufficient light, perception is achromatic and ultimately, black. I would also like to point out again, and chances are again and again, that the absence of something does not make it suddenly not real. Much like the absence of evidence of a deity figure... to which the student already agreed with. 

Section five:  Because.... reasons?
Who's the idiot: Student

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

While I understand this whole post was an attempt to take a stab at evolution and create a feel good moment for people of certain faith, the whole thing is really nothing more than a cluster fuck. It really makes me wonder what the author was thinking when they wrote it, and what they possibly thought it would accomplish if people actually thought about this whole thing for a moment. In any case, this person jumps around to a few different points, that I will address below.

You argue there is life and then there is death
This was never a argument, nor something one can disagree with or challenge. The process of conception, of birth, life and death, has been observed so many times that we don't even think about it anymore. In addition to this, the professor didn't argue their was life and then death, what was said was:

"My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then?"
(Student was silent.)

Clearly he stated that a deity who controls everything, killed his relative with cancer. This point was not refuted by the student.

a good GOD and a bad GOD
The professor point, made over the course of a few lines of conversation, was not concern of a good deity source or a evil deity source. The point made, and not refuted, was that ALL concepts and perceptions of good and evil comes from a single (assuming said source is real) source, the deity of the student. Which, for me at least, begs the question, why was a god even mentioned in a science class to begin with? The professor should have even tolerated a religious outburst in class, since a science outburst in a church would not be tolerated.


You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure.
Again the professor wasn't measuring a deity figure at all, the professor was stating that no evidence for said deity figure could be found. A point that the student did not argue with.

Before I move on to the next point, I won't to take a moment to write about something that has always bothered me. While the mystery and awe factor associated with a deity being unknowable might at first seem all deep and cool, but is actually a very dangerious consept to support. A deity who can not be understood, who can not be fully known or reviled, is a deity that can hide something. We do not even tolerate such behavior in ourselves (humanity) and know how it can lead to disastrous ends... now imagine what a deity can/could do with that. If I was this professor, I would also point out that one can not assume their deity is good or evil, or even that any attached holy texts are true because of this. In the specific case of this student, since no one was around to say for sure that god inspired the bible, how can anyone say that is the case? Using the agurment that "the bible says the bible is true" is not a valid claim. Since other religious texts say the same thing, they must either be assumed as true as well, or else a hypocritical atmosphere takes hold. The bible is not true because it says it's true, it becomes true because YOU (as in the student) says it is.  

 Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
Science can't explain a thought? Lol wut? Science says that the first major step in the development of life was the cell, a membrane-enclosed space that allowed groups of chemical factories we call genes to stay together and not mix with other genes. This allowed the cell to perform the tasks of finding and absorbing chemical energy and convert it into more usable forms so it could grow, divide into more cells and avoid getting absorbed itself. But every cell had to be able to perform all these functions by itself, which meant that it couldn't get too big or its functions would become inefficient and more likely to die. Some cells learned to specialize and cooperate with other cells, so that no one cell had to do all the work. These cells each got very good at one particular function, such as transforming energy, transporting nutrients or getting rid of waste. So they learned how to organize themselves in ways that were more efficient for the whole colony. This was the beginning of organic life and it allowed these composite life forms to get much bigger, but only to a point. The farther apart one organ is from another, the harder it is for each organ to cooperate with the other. A stomach needs to signal to a mouth when it's empty. A heart needs to tell a lung it needs more or less oxygen. And a toe needs to tell a leg muscle to pull on it when the toe senses too much heat or cold. So another type of cell developed, the nerve cell, which provides the ability for various parts of the body to signal each other and coordinate their activities. As these activities got more complex, the signaling system had to get more complex too, becoming a control system that interpreted signals and directed responses to the various other parts of the body. It was all autonomic, nothing we would call thinking. A complex organism that could coordinate itself successfully live on to reproduce. One that didn't, died out. But then there were new developments. Certain brain cells learned how to record repetitive neural events, becoming learning and memory. Some brains developed enough control capacity that they became aware of what they were doing. And some became capable of thinking abstractly, about things that had happened and things that might happen, which allowed them to plan for the future. All these developments improved survival odds, but they did not create a separate being inside the brain. They were simply a very well-organized group of cells with complex functional capabilities, capable of reprogramming themselves in real time. One of the advantages of abstract thought is that it doesn't require awareness of every molecule of structure or erg of energy to operate. One can use symbols of objects, concrete or abstract, to work out arrangements among them and form an idea. One can then create a process for making the idea come true in real life, or to decide whether the idea is good enough to make the effort. You're not actually making anything yet, just rehearsing the process, but what is actually happening is a series of logic tests going on in your mind. Because the brain develops spontaneously from genetic instructions and environmental limitations, its logical organization is a work in progress, and its decisions are affected by the quality of its sensory input. By being aware of these processes at the symbolic level, we discern that we are thinking. We are not aware of which logic neurons are interacting with which memory neurons or which sensory neurons, we just know that it's raining outside and we should probably wear a hat, or that if Andy is in the meeting, it will be best not to mention sports. 

TLDR: Your thoughts and personality are devolved by outside and surrounding stimuli.

And honestly... if you can't understand your own thoughts, that's really your own damn fault.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Death has a very firm basis in reality, and I'm socked the student would even try to argue against that.  For humans at least, everyone that has ever lived has or will die. Death is very much a real thing, something that can be seen and recorded. The process of dying can be measured over time or obsevered in real time. It can be documented and repeated in ALL organic subjects. The claim that it can not exist as a substantive thing just blows my mind. If we are also speaking strictly science here then yes, death (ending of all biological functions within a organic unit) is the opposite of life (the continuation of all biological functions within a organic unit). 

Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
And now we finally arrive at the real purpose of this train wreck of a post. Pardon me while I roll my eyes and address this crap in the next section.

Section six: Selective facts are fun
Who's the idiot: Student

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

Oh zing! I bet the professor is going to need a major burn heal for that fully compelling and full proof argument against evolution! Since one can not see it happen, occur or even exist, then it must only be an opinion right! Or not, since the whole thing is based on bullshit and the student even winds up killing his own religious argument. However, first things first. For the comment about evolution never being observed Mark Isaak wrote a pretty damn good piece on the subject. He address not only that, but other misconceptions people often have about the theory of evolution. If you ever have a few minutes to kill, I highly recommend you read the full post. For now, I would like to quote part of it here:

"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

I would also like to point out, two side bits. Making a claim of  "Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher" is counter productive. Not only is it simply not true, such logic can be effectively used against the student.  Since no one has observed (and has evidence of) a deity figure and his/her/it's work, then any talk of faith or mention of dogma is actually an opinion and not a fact. There can not be a "one true religion" because it can not be proven or seen. Also, I would like to point that trying to make science out to be some kind of religion would and should be disastrous. In America, and much if not all of the developed world, we have laws against discrimination. Even more so when it comes to religion. If science was considered a religion, and was reclassified as such, any attempt to dogma from other faiths would be considered discrimination, something (the student's) faith often cry about themselves.

Section Seven: Did we just go full retard?
Who's the idiot: Student

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

If this was an actually occurred, something that happened in the class room and reality, I would demand the school remove this student from the class and NOT allow them to return. While the argument may have netted some worth (assuming it was a real professor and not one made up by the religious author), the statement really sums up the whole mood and intelligence of the student. Science does not say anywhere that the professor does not have a brain, and to say otherwise is just fucktarded. FFS! Yo, student. The professors brain can actually be seen, it's called a fucking xray you dumb shit. Or is that to much like magic for you and therefor evil? Is Neurosurgery just some new age fad and brain cancer just a fucking lie?

This is almost done right?

Final section: CAUSE ONLY MY FAITH!
Who's the idiot: The Author.

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

I... I don't even.


I was going to have a separate section of a little conclusion thing, but now seems like a good time as any. At this point, I am superseding all previous "who's the idiot" and replacing them with "The Author" The author has obviously never been in a science classroom or is just to fucking stupid to remember anobything from it. A professor of science would NEVER EVER say "just take it on faith" and leave it at that. That is not what science is, nor is it what science is about. Take the debate between Ham and Bill Nye and focus on their answers for "what would make you change your mind".

That is why religion must stay out of science class. When a scientist is presented with evidence that their theory was wrong, the scientist must accept it (and does) and moves on. Religion will never do that, no matter how wrong they may be. I'd also like to point out that a professor of science would never say what was posted up there. They would say "follow the scientific method, and see where the evidence leads you. Accept proof, not faith.". I would also like to point out that faith is NOT the only thing that keeps us alive and moving since Atheists are doing rather well...


Ugh... I'm done with this shit, I still have a game to work on and let's play videos to edit.



* Just to make this so much easier on myself, I'll say it here. If you are anti-science, don't even bother commenting on this post. Not only do I not deal with idiots that far down the totem poll, the irony of any post you would make might blow up the internet.