Since I was not raised on the theory of evolution, I have more of an inclination to question it than someone who has only been taught the theory of evolution. I do not disagree with the currently observed results of micro-evolution, but there are far less factual observations of macro-evolution and far more theoretical thought-experiment paths. I was discussing this with someone else. There is an article discussing a test run to see if atmospheric gas from long ago would produce something else if held under the same circumstances as earth: high hydrogen content, barren surface of rock, and a long period of UV exposure. The method to test this? Take a small container of gas with high hydrogen content, and bombard it with electricity for a short period of time. Seems to contradict the base tenants of science. For this kind of reason, I question this theory. You did call a fact a theory: "Evolutionary *theory* explains how this is so. To disagree with this *fact* in this day and age amounts to sheer willful ignorance, does it not?" Those two terms seem to be interchangeable in alot of scientific debates or articles I've seen to this day. Combining a fact with a theory, does not create a fact. All evidence has to be factual for something to be labeled as a fact. Even if a single portion of it is theoretical, it is to be called a theory.

I believe I was thinking of Richard Dawkins.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, while occasionally sarcastic, is actually well mannered whenever I have seen him speak or discuss.

Also, only the Westborough Baptist Church is proud and stupid enough to consider themselves God's chosen purpose for the universe. All the Christians I know, see themselves as servants, not chosen ones.

Let me see if I can properly convey the concept in my head: If people are perfect, they would be identical copies with no flaws and no variations(because beauty would need to be a consistent level of perfection...i.e. identical). Post death, everything is perfect. For perfection to exist in everything, it must also exist in human emotion. This means a constant level of happiness is required, as this would satisfy the definition of perfection in everything. So, boredom would not exist. Since it is a non-human construct, Heaven can create whatever rules of existence that it wishes to, possibly changing a person's version of happiness to fit the situation. Since we are discussing an omnipotent being in this context, then his omnipotence allows him to define this as he wishes. Still, in the Bible, heaven is constructed as a place where there is perfection from sin, not perfection of the individual. The flaws and sickness issues of the human will be solved. Still discussing an omnipotent being here, so he can do as he wishes, such as re-write the laws of human emotion.

Si. Contrary to the opinion of the moderator haunting my every post in a crusade of self justice(and completely missing the real content), this was in fact my troll post, one done in response to a rather terse and sarcastic post by h4rr4r. I decided to take the "superiority complex" path of conversation for the fun of it. It provided mild entertainment while I tested a rather lengthy Perl script I was developing. In contrast, the comment this moderator marked as trolling, was in fact a serious question of scientific integrity. He seems blind to that though... I must say, I prefer reddit discussions. Crowdsourced rating's provide a balance and objective conversation, not the weighted opinion-based voting system of slashdot. I shall resign to only reading the articles from this point forward.

Since the issue doesn't affect my daily life, I have no qualms. If it interfered with my daily tasks in some way, then I would question the validity of the problem.

A flat earth was a completely wrong conclusion that had been proven wrong long before it was theorized.

Both knowing the earth was spherical, and calculating it's circumference, as Eratosthenes did, was a significant step towards the correct conclusion that could only be proven through advances in technology: The earth bulges, but even then, it's surface is a complex texture.

So...how was this detour related to my response?

This was targeted at the original author and his haughty attitude of omnipotent knowledge and superiority that he displayed.

Now, none of my content was targeted towards those who live under the influence of science, be it technology, knowledge, or curiosity. It was targeted at the scientists themselves, who have shown a trend of self invoked superiority. I hope this clarifies the scope and target of my discussion. Science has produced many solid pieces of information(but which are still open for failure, as all things are), and it has proven useful, to the point that I trust technology, a car, modern medicine, etc. to function. That was not my point at all, neither did I attack the intelligence of the scientific community as you claim. I attacked their misplaced self-confidence. This same self confidence leads some scientists to consider their theories as fact. They gain a sense of superiority, and condescend on any who disagree. This is the character of a child. I respect someone who holds their own work in a humble fashion. I abhor the proud. They cast a dark spot upon our culture, and the entirety of the human race.

I am glad that one person has successfully read and interpreted my post. Exactly. Theories should bide their time, and when they are proven wrong or replaced, they should step down(so to speak). My issue is thus: many scientists sit beside a theory treating it as a solidified law. This confidence is misplaced, and leads to false theories being propagated for extended periods of time. As for Faith, I personally have Faith in the creation of the Earth by God. I have no desire to debate that here, as every religious debate I have ever been in quickly descends into foolish name calling and character attacks. I have purposefully abstracted religion out of this discussion.

I mentioned nothing about religion or prayer, neither did I deny the research of science. I simply questioned the omnipotent persona science likes to frequently portray. Did you take the time to comprehend my original piece of literature? Or did you simplify my comment into the common vernacular in the same lewd manner in which you responded?

Yet so many scientists refuse to question their own theories and postulates. I see far too many thought exercises and far too little research. It seems that personality attack and condescension have become a required character trait of scientists. I have no respect for someone with a foul mouth and snark responses.

Senseless comment with no relation to the topic at hand. The appearance of foolishness pervades your character.

A world of perfection would be a boring world devoid of variation or event. It's the imperfections of this world that introduce those random elements called events. If you wish this, so be it. I, do not.

How is it obvious or stupid? The issue is compensated for by the use of stereoscopy.

You hate your flawed eyes. In fact, it appears you hate all of your flaws, based upon the acid coated rhetoric you displayed in your initial response. Because of your vehemence, I concluded that you wished your inferior body were designed in a manner that is, or approaches perfection. You do not seek perfection? So how is the point of failure in your eyesight such a considerable issue? If you are satisfied with your current state of existence, then you would register no complaints. This is not the case.

So you believe that you deserve perfection then? You desire a world of perfect beings? How boring.

This level of self-confidence in scientists humors me so. Such pride, to assume that their limited human brain with it's capability for frequent and unpredictable error is the source of perfect truth(is not every human flawed?). It's foolish to think that our conclusions are flawless and equivalent to a law. How often have integral theories been proven wrong or incorrect? We will never reach a final conclusion. Who are you to say that your opinion is the only correct one? Who are you to say that your conclusions are the only possible set of results? Great men have fallen prey to pride and vanity. Don't let it cloud your judgement.