RE: The real religion?
August 17, 2016 at 12:38 am
(This post was last modified: August 17, 2016 at 12:40 am by bennyboy.)
RoadRunner
Who says you can't test evolution? You test it by drawing inferences about "missing link" species based on what fossils you can dig up. If you later find the species you're looking for, it confirms that your inferences were correct. Happens all the time.
See, you don't understand what "testing" is. It doesn't necessarily mean guys in lab coats sticking electrodes up monkey's asses or whatever. It means you are actively looking for data, ideas, or really any way to demonstrate that a theory is false. And that's where your testimony fails-- it doesn't actively seek contradiction; it is part of a tradition where the suspension of disbelief is considered a virtue, and the seeking of contradiction is considered heretical. This is not a good environment in which to seek truth about the real world. It's also, in my opinion, an anti-theist position-- because if you think God is REAL, then you will seek to understand his universe as perfectly as possible. Instead, you fixate on the authority of 2000 year-old testimony from uneducated desert dwellers. If God is real, he must think that's incredibly stupid, and maybe a bit insulting.
Evolution has the advantage of being useful. It explains things we can see, and is not currently challenged by any other theory of why animals are the way they are. Unless, that is, you consider the 6-day creation story a useful and water-tight theory. But if you do think that, be prepared for the derisive laughter of anyone who doesn't share your preferred cultural mythology.
Who says you can't test evolution? You test it by drawing inferences about "missing link" species based on what fossils you can dig up. If you later find the species you're looking for, it confirms that your inferences were correct. Happens all the time.
See, you don't understand what "testing" is. It doesn't necessarily mean guys in lab coats sticking electrodes up monkey's asses or whatever. It means you are actively looking for data, ideas, or really any way to demonstrate that a theory is false. And that's where your testimony fails-- it doesn't actively seek contradiction; it is part of a tradition where the suspension of disbelief is considered a virtue, and the seeking of contradiction is considered heretical. This is not a good environment in which to seek truth about the real world. It's also, in my opinion, an anti-theist position-- because if you think God is REAL, then you will seek to understand his universe as perfectly as possible. Instead, you fixate on the authority of 2000 year-old testimony from uneducated desert dwellers. If God is real, he must think that's incredibly stupid, and maybe a bit insulting.
Evolution has the advantage of being useful. It explains things we can see, and is not currently challenged by any other theory of why animals are the way they are. Unless, that is, you consider the 6-day creation story a useful and water-tight theory. But if you do think that, be prepared for the derisive laughter of anyone who doesn't share your preferred cultural mythology.
