My goodness, you are ignorant about science in general and evolution in particular aren’t you? That’s not an insult, just a statement of fact. “Goodness” and “badness” have nothing to do with natural selection, which only states that traits tending to encourage a entity to reproduce successfully spread. “Bad” characteristics by some moral measure might prosper just as much as “good” ones, and a reading of biology shows many species with happens that would turn your hair gray. Why any god would allow this is beyond me, but they make perfect sense in terms of evolution.
Yiou might not have noticed me saying I didn’t believe in evolution, I accepted it. So your answer does not address my point at all. You might be constitutionally incapable of understanding the philosophy of science, which is not unique. Intellegent design does not claim to show an instance of this happening, but says it is necessary because evolution cannot explain certain structures. Now all in Behe’s book have been explained, so my asking you for an example of what makes intelligent design the only answer is reasonable.
I’m sorry that your talks with god are indisinguishable from a deluded person talking to himself. Unless you can show me something inexplicable except by the presence of a real god, I’m going to apply Occam’s Razor and choose not to believe you.
I think this is where the problem lies, the last sentence I quoted. I submit, there are good reasons to hold some of these beliefs, even in the face of contradicting evidence. I think a lot of skeptics get stuck at the, “Here’s the evidence, if you don’t change your mind, you are a fool,” and then stay there. I know not all skeptics are like that, but I’ve seen quite a few examples of baiting and mocking on the skeptics’ parts also.
An article from the Skeptical Inquirer talks about beliefs, and I found it pretty informative. I’m sure a lot of people are familiar with it, but it’s been a while since I read it, and think it’s worth a look, regarding this discussion. Particularly:
And a little further on:
While I am atheist, and admit to becoming fed up with non-convincing responses which amount to little more than, “The Bible says so.” I also find the “You’re delusional, you might as well believe in…” slippery slope as unconvincing. I doubt either argument has convinced many. I also realize the article I linked to may seem “loaded” given the title, but still believe it has some worthwhile things to say.
If you choose to ignore the evidence that our bodies are far from perfect, we don’t really have anything to argue here.
Either you really didn’t read my post, or you choose to put blinders on. So, you choose to only accept completely mathematical, ironclad proof. I’d remember that for later in this post.
If there were scientific studies that rigorously determines that there were massive evidence of God, then the scientific community would in a heartbeat fund many more studies, hoping to cash in on the action. The only problem is, there is no such evidence.
Not if you use your wacky-land definition of scientific proof. So which will it be Lekatt? Do your studies show proof of god, or don’t they? Remember, under your definition, I don’t have to accept your studies because you havent given me a mathematical, philosophically rigorous proof.
The scientific fact of evolution is not incompatible with creationism.
do you expect me to just accept what you give to me as truth? Even though you have no, nil, nada in the way of peer-reviewed, rigorous evidence. Your sites, my friend, are benighted, indeed.