Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Nonpareil]

Have you seen any of the papers from the last Royal Society Conference in London regarding the "extended evolution synthesis"? Royal Society

The extended evolutionary synthesis does not include, suggest, imply, or even state that it is possible or coherent for teleology to be included. It is an alternative approach to what factors weigh in most heavily when considering the evolutionary changes in species, and places a heavier emphasis on things like kin selection (species evolving so that family members will protect the children of relatives over themselves) and niche construction (species altering their environments and thus changing the selection pressures in play).

The link goes to a very diplomatic article that carefully avoids directly challenging existing concepts in evolutionary theory so you have to read between the lines and look at the original findings to really get a sense of the controversies.

In other words, the thing you linked to doesn't actually support anything that you just said.

1. The New Testament is not evidence because the claims made in the New Testament have not been demonstrated to be true.

I would invite you to reflect on the circularity of that statement.

That is not circular.

Because evidence has to be presented before it can be evaluated.

No. Data has to be presented and evaluated for factual correctness before it can be considered evidence.

If it is not found to be factually correct, then it is discarded, because it is not evidence.

---

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true?

Because that would be a very, very stupid thing to do.

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over.

Or you could answer the question. If your belief does have a rational grounding, what is the evidence?

If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'?

Pretty much, yup.

This is why we don't just accept things like Bigfoot, ghosts, and alien abductions at face value.

That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life

It's really not.

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.

Yes, they are.

Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole

Irreducible complexity is nonsense, and, in point of fact, we almost always do know how those things evolved. Eyes, for example; a favored tentpole example of irreducible complexity, and we have known their evolutionary path for decades at this point.

And so on for the rest of your "objections". I'm sorry, Steve, but once again, you don't actually seem to know how these subjects are treated by the people who study them. This is, in fact, all settled science. The only people who object to it are demonstrable idiots with a creationist agenda, not people with an actual understanding of the science involved.

My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

Because it has not been established to be true.

This is not complicated.