And how underwhelming the proof of God is!
CMC fnord!
I can’t prove no God exists. But I can prove no *Omnipotent *and Omnibenevolent God exists.
“Children slowly die from horribly painful cancer.”
Either God can’t do anything, or isn’t willing to do anything.
I think a fundamental misunderstanding underpins your stance.
Can you take a minute and read this, and see if it helps your get the core concept: Imgur: The magic of the Internet
It’s a visual representation of how a bunch of little changes can lead to a large change.
But He does save a random number. He just disguises it as spontaneous remission.
Let’s not forget all the burn victims and amputees that are healed by faith alone.
Please tell us what you think the theory of “macroevolution” is.
Cultural cognition has nothing to do with whether a scientific theory is scientifically valid. Evolution doesn’t require belief, it is a scientific explanation. If a person doesn’t understand evolution, they are as far as biology goes, scientifically illiterate. If a person understands evolution and rejects it as a scientific theory they are mentally deranged. If a person understands evolution but prefers to go about life with the belief that a religious theory is what they want to organize their doings around, that is merely religious.
Evolution is a completely proven scientific explanation that has no scientific competitors.
I’m sure this point has already been made, but…
To the OP: I’m afraid the statement is wrong. Scientific “literacy” has nothing to do with how many invertebrate taxa you can name, nor how well you know the periodic table. It means understanding that you can’t pick and choose when you want to apply the scientific method. I know ten-year-olds who understand this. They are scientifically “literate.” Anyone who denies the reality of biological evolution is not.
Actually, yes. The teaching of creationism is a potentially significant policy question if there is community pressure to do it, which in itself rolls into the larger question of the right of parents to dictate that nonsense be taught in public schools, which inevitably cascades into arguments about private schools, home schooling, and voucher systems. Which then gets tangentially rolled up into the question of the role of religion in education and in government, all matters of public policy. If theocratic evangelicals accepted the separation of church and state, none of those questions would ever arise.
[quote=“Twoflower, post:40, topic:690428”]
If you were scientifically literate, you’d be well aware of how overwhelming the proof of evolution is.[/QUOTE
Perhaps then a memo should be sent to ALL those illiterate scientists in their respective fields who do not subscribe to macroevolution/natural selection, but one of the various theories of Creationism and or ID.
“Prove it” - with respect to your notion God does not exist.
Can we get a “Burden of Proof” sticky?
CMC fnord!
…or the result of all those evils/injustices anyone could point out are the result of something man brought on himself. “The wages of sin”, so to speak.
So you’re blaming a child for being sinful and bringing on the cancer him/herself.
Yes, because they are wilful ignorants of how many they are and they continue to not get support where it counts, their attempts at doing “science by petition” are tried and false (convincing only the ones that ignore logic 101) and same old tactic used by 911 truthers, Scientific racists, climate change deniers, homoeopathy and many other pseudo science proponents.
Of course you did not point to that list, but it is an excellent place to see how typical creationist groups like the Discovery Institute are with the evidence that they have regarding “ALL those illiterate scientists in their respective fields who do not subscribe to macroevolution/natural selection”
Firstly, I could care less about “how many” scientists subscribe to Darwinian Theory. There’s a history about just how wrong those vast majorities forming a ‘consensus’ have been in the past.
Secondly, One would have to be in a state of willful denial or quite naive not to believe that ‘funding’ and ‘peer pressure’ play a role in ‘who’ signs ‘what.’
That is funny, a boiler plate denialist move is to claim that precise thing, problem is that a variation of the Galileo Gambit is also a silly move.
Sure, and anti vaccine people are therefore correct…
Nah, you are not really using logic, the reality is that you do not know that scientific consensus is not like a democratic one, you need evidence to convince most scientists to follow a path, a path that allows many others to discover new things. That is key because creationism or Intelligence Design had a chance a few years ago when they came with some concepts and ideas like Irreducible Complexity that just did not pan out; instead of new research ID people are left with only unpublished papers or blogs to make criticism of the real science and no research that others will follow.
That’s a bit dramatic, wouldn’t you say?
Who am I to “blame” anybody about things I can’t fully comprehend? - the consequences of man’s disobedience.
Besides, the primary topic here is not “God.”
I’m not the one claiming “majority” automatically wins in Science.
Anti-vaccine people have nothing to do with the enormous amount of federal funding that pours into the ‘scientific community.’
Peer review by the very same who have everything to lose supporting I.D.? I’m gonna say I.D. is just in its early stages of its ascendancy.
But needed as your say sos were really silly.
Actually claiming that you were comprehending looks bad when it follows that there are many examples to show how flawed was that idea that peer pressure and funding are driving the scientists.
There may be some times that is the case, but I have looked also at the anti-vaccination and anthropological caused climate change deniers points, and just looking at the history of how we reached the current consensus it is clear that what is naive is to think that peer pressure and funding are the main reasons why a consensus was reached.
In reality (just like in evolution) many ridiculed scientists that had funding in other areas and those real Galileos found evidence to eventually convince most scientists that the original consensus had a flaw. In reality many changes in science are like that, there is really no full dismissal of past ideas, Einstein apologized to Newton but Newton’s ideas continue to be used, Scientists knew before that global warming gases warm the earth, but later it was found that they were wrong on how CO2 actually captured and emitted heat in different layers of the atmosphere and how much nature was actually capturing human made CO2.
And the reason why I can tell you how silly is to assume that peer pressure and funding guided the progress in evolution is because I know the History of that science too.
I’m sure it’s possible for some people to be generally scientifically literate while also being willfully ignorant in certain fields. However, we have here at least one data point strongly correlating disbelief in evolution with scientific illiteracy.
Wrong on that one too.
It is clear that creationism or ID has the problem of the scientific controversy not existing or even diminishing as time goes by, As Talkorigins put it recently: “sure you want to teach the controversy, so where is it?” It has been years since people like Behe had published his “definitive” book against evolution and a look at the academic sources showed how pathetic his footprint or influence in academia was really after 10 years, but this is not an exercise on popularity, research would by now had supported many of his ideas against evolution, but the only thing we got was even more evidence that evolution was and is real.