(August 9, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(August 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm)In This Mind Wrote: Would you use the same criteria to judge what is a good wine versus what is a good airplane? Of course not. Your standards may not be 'higher' for one than the other, but they would be different.Naturally they would be different; but that wasn't the point was it. The point was, standards for proof (not the methods for proving) should be the same for everything, otherwise you are biased towards a particular view.
I already addressed this issue. Rather than make your claim again as though it stands uncountered, please address the argument provided.
Let's look at the actual questions again, shall we?
"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."
"It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists."
Are you claiming these questions are actual equivalents to each other?
We have certain, irrevocable proof that Evolution happens. Anyone denying this is lying. We may not understand some of the minute details, but it has been proven beyond any doubt that evolution occurs.
Shell B offered some such arguments regarding god as though they mattered to the actual existence of god. There was discussion over whether god is good or evil or none of the above as though that mattered to the actual existence of god.
We have proven evolution exists. We may not be exactly sure how the lungfish developed, but we have proven with certain, irrevocable evidence that evolution happens.
The equivalent would be saying 'we have proven god exists. We aren't sure of his intentions or whether he can read minds, but we've proven he exists'.
The two questions are not equivalent.
