Message 64 of 67 (653517)
02-22-2012 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by CrytoGod
02-21-2012 2:02 AM
What counts as "evidence" to someone who is afraid they'll go to hell if they don't believe a particular creation story?
What do YOU imagine the world would look like if evolution WAS true-- how do you imagine it would be different?
In your mind is this what the world would look like if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being was in charge? --Cancer, malformations, all kinds of kinky animal sex, a huge and wasteful amount of spermatazoa, ebola, Tay Sachs disease, extinctions, suffering, bugs that eat other bugs alive... an entire universe with mostly no life at all... etc.
I mean it's a great world (though not what I'd expect of an omnipotent being), but what exactly is your alternative hypothesis-- God did it? How is that more useful than saying "it's magic"?
In science, hypothesis must be able to predict new evidence to become a theory-- and a scientific theory is the best explanation for the observed facts. I think even you might be able to understand this with germ theory, for example. Sure, demons could be causing illness as many people believed (including your bible writers), but that belief doesn't allow us to learn more. The idea that micro-organisms cause disease does... hence modern medicine.
So what is your hypothesis and what can it predict? Evolution has given us forensic tests and paternity tests and flu vaccines and tiktaalik (etc. etc.) So what can you hypothesis do for us? How is it useful and how can scientists learn more? How can we know if it's not true? How would things be different if it wasn't true? Why should someone not afraid of hell give credence to the notions of those who are? (Don't those afraid of hell have a vested interest in deluding themselves?) How can we compare your hypothesis with other unfalsifiable claims (like that we are in a Matrix or an experiment of aliens from a parallel universe?)
Scientists are interested in the truth-- not what somebody thinks you should believe to be saved. It's the only way we can learn more and bring forth the modern marvels of today's world.
So-- how does your (so far unexplained) alternative hypothesis explain the evidence better than the theory of evolution? Because if it can't or doesn't, then scientists can't or won't care about it. It's just more "woo".
I strongly suggest you stop the silly cut and paste jobs. It makes you look as stupid, crazy, and dishonest as the people you are cutting and pasting from. The ONLY people who take such nutters seriously are people like you-- those who think that they must believe nonsense in order to be "saved".
Edited by articulett, : No reason given.
Edited by articulett, : corrected typos
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 45 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 2:02 AM|| ||CrytoGod has not yet responded|