Evidence Verses Faith

[lukec]

Yeah. That's right actually, I don't think you properly understand evolution. I don't think you've looked into it very much yourself, especially if you learned about it in school, like you say a while ago, and immediately shut it out.

I've said it elsewhere, but evolution does exist- you only have to look at the fossil record and domesticated animals and evolving bacteria. There is more evidence than you know, testable, provable evidence, and I would be happy to point you to where you can find some.

Ok I understand what you are saying to EvF now, I was just trying to define the idea of "Burden of Proof."

And yeah, I think I am more interested in creation stories (though what I actually oppose is close-minded thinking) than you. I am still trying to learn about them, at least, still trudging through the bible for example.

[Tiberius]

What makes you think that my understanding in evolution can only be bettered? Simply because I don't believe?

No...because you have shown ignorance of the actual theory, so your understanding can be bettered. I myself am ignorant of large amounts of the theory; I only understand the basic elements of it (mutations, genetics, fossil-evidence, natural selection mechanisms, etc). I am always reading up on the theory so I can better understand it.

[Edwardo Piet]

One cannot rationally assume anything exists. Even evolution. And you are right, it is innocent until proven guilty and the evidence isn't there though everyone has picked sides.

I was telling him (EvF) that it wasn't my job to prove anything to him, it was his own responsibility. That is what this conversation is about and it can't get any dumber than the that. Science is a lame excuse for hating a God you don't believe exists.

Why, though, are you surprised, Luke? Are you any more interested in that which you oppose than myself?

NO its not your job. In the sense you don't HAVE to. That's NOT what the burden of proof means. It just means if any explaining is going to be done. If any proof needs to be given. It is the believer that needs to give the proof. Not the unbeliever. Otherwise the atheist has no reason to believe the believer. And the believer has no reason to believe it either. You don't HAVE to give it. That's not what it means. It just means if any explanation is going to be given you are the one who needs to give it. Because you are the one who holds the "belief(s)".
Fine if you just want to believe anything and refuse to justify any of your nonsensical beliefs fine by me. I say they are nonsensical because at least to me, they remain that way until you can give any reasons why your belief in "God" ISN'T nonsensical.
And indeed science WOULD be a lame excuse for hating a God that doesn't exist. If science actually says to do any such thing. Which it doesn't.
And I certainly DON'T hate God.
I have said, how could I hate a God that doesn't exist? I NEVER said "I hate God because of the evils of the OT" for instance.
I do say however "IF the God of the OT exists. THEN I hate him."
I never said I hate a NON-existent God! That would be absurd!