(December 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm)lukec Wrote: Well I gotta say Daystar, that you when you say you don't care about science I am a little surprised. I am simply not sure why you, who seem to be a critical thinker, would not be interested in at least the evolutionary biology part of science. This is especially true since you feel strongly about creation... why don't you care about at least bettering your understanding of the theory which you oppose?
What makes you think that my understanding in evolution can only be bettered? Simply because I don't believe? I make that mistake with Atheists all the time as well. That is what I call religious 'thinking.'
(December 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm)lukec Wrote: The burden of proof he's talking about is the idea that one cannot rationally assume that god exists- innocent until proven guilty is the same idea. You don't assume what you are trying to prove, which is why there is always a burden of proof in trying to provide evidence for a hypothesis.
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?
