(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: Evolution describes (does not prescribe) the past using present findings.
Evolution is the study of how life changes over time. It includes not just fossil findings but also observations of speciation and adaptation in modern times. It also has predictive applications for the future as well, such as vaccines for the next anticipated strain of flu.
Quote:If you have ever considered the big bang theory to be even a remote possibilty you've put a BLIND faith into it. You weren't there to OBSERVE it.
So confidence in science is equivalent to faith in religion? Unlike with religious assertions, science contains a body of knowledge and evidence that anyone can review. If I wished to pursue a doctorate in cosmology or astronomy, I could provide you with a dissertation of the evidence. However, if I were to pursue a doctorate in theology, I would be no better off in providing any evidence for the assertions of the Bible.
The scientific method is a process that involves rigorous peer review. It ferrets out and exposes faulty explanations and bogus claims. It demands tests that anyone can examine or repeat. To suggest that the scientific community all over the world has accepted and defended a faulty theory for 100 years is to suggest a grand conspiracy theory, one that would dwarf those proposed by UFO buffs and 9/11 Truthers. Can you provide any reason to think such a junta of atheists has managed to pull off and maintain such a hoax for so long? Can you even suggest a clear motive?
That "thud" you just heard was the burden of proof landing in your backyard. Good luck.
Quote:About your video.
What would you consider a convincing peice of evidence for the biblical God?
Let's see if your answer would be inconsistant with how you've determined other things to be true.
It's not mine but I did find it interesting.
A "convincing piece of evidence", by which I mean something that would make me consider that Yahweh is real, might include magical artifacts like Paul's handkerchief. Use this piece of cloth to heal people under the scrutiny of medical peer review with repeatable blind tests that help to rule out the placebo effect.
Alternatively, you could perform healing rituals that Jesus promised those of faith could do (Mark 16). Again, this would need to be performed as a series repeatable blind tests with a control group to rule out the placebo effect, performed under the scrutiny of medical peer review.
I find it necessary to remark that Christianity offers no evidence of any kind, aside from philoso-babble.
Quote:Think this one through carefully, because any inconsistant answer would prove your biased position and psychological reason to hold to an atheistic view.
Do keep in mind as you review my response that not only do you have the burden of proof but the proof required for any claim is proportional to the extraordinary nature of the claim. Mundane claims require minimal evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Quote:BTW: I wonder why no one can account for logic in their own worldview except for the Christian theist?
I again repeat (ad neuseum) that logic doesn't need to be accounted for. But I do wonder how "GodWillsIt" is a superior answer and why you feel the gods of other religions wouldn't substitute for yours quite nicely.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
