Evolution is simply more magnificent than your religion

The Greeks (mostly) believed in geocentrism, but they did not impose it. When Aristarchus of Samos, two centuries or more before Jesus, proposed a heliocentric system, no-one threatened to burn him at the stake. Sure, they got some things wrong. But to say generally that "they were imposing philosophical ideas unto nature" is even wronger.Consider Eratosthenes measuring the circumference of the Earth, or Archimedes discovering hydrostatics, or even Aristotle, of all Greek thinkers my least favorite and the most guilty of your charge --- nonetheless his researches into embryology remained the best there were until the modern age.As for irrational numbers, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but in fact the proof that there are irrational numbers taught in Universities today was handed down to us from the Greeks. I shall append it to this post.Don't even get me started on the Chinese and the Arabs and the Indians.---Irrational numbers exist (an ancient Greek proof).We shall prove specifically that the square root of two is irrational.Note first of all that if a number can be written as a fraction at all, it can be written as a fraction such that the numerator and denominator have no common factors (other than 1), by dividing the top and the bottom by the highest common factor of the two numbers. For example, consider 24/60. The highest common factor of 24 and 60 is 12. Dividing top and bottom by 12, we get 2/5, where obviously 2 and 5 have no common factor (other than 1). We call this the reduced form of a fraction.So to show that √2 can't be written as a fraction, it is sufficient to show that it cannot be written as a fraction in reduced form. Our proof will be by contradiction --- we shall suppose that it can be written in reduced form, and derive an absurdity.So, suppose √2 can be written in reduced form as a/b for whole numbers a and b. What follows?Well, if a/b = √2 then, squaring both sides, a²/b² = 2.Multiplying both sides by b², we get a² = 2b².So a² is twice some whole number, and is even. But for the square of a whole number to be even, then that number must itself be even. So a is even. So there is some whole number c such that we can write a = 2c.Substituting this into the equation a² = 2b², we get (2c)² = 2b².Now (2c)² = 4c².So this gives us 4c² = 2b².Now divide both sides by two:2c² = b².So b² is twice some whole number, and is therefore even. But the square of a whole number can be even if and only if the number itself is even. So b is even.So a and b are both even, i.e. both divisible by two.But this contradicts the proposition we started with, that a/b was the reduced form of a fraction equal to the square root of two. In other words, we have found that if √2 could be written as a fraction in reduced form, then that fraction would not be in reduced form. But this is an absurdity.Therefore √2 cannot be written as a fraction in reduced form, therefore it cannot be written as a fraction.---Observe that this proof has nothing to do with Greek philosophy. Or Jesus, for that matter.

Well, there are two versions of this story --- one is that the Pythagoreans drowned him, the other that they offered a sacrifice of a hundred oxen to their gods in thanksgiving. I have not been able to discover the primary source for either of these stories, but the fact that we have the proof suggests that, if either, the latter has more of truth in it.But in any case, it is absurd to say that "Greek philosophy rejected irrational numbers" when all the mathematical writings of the Greeks that have come down to us accepted them. Who are "they"? There were Greek heliocentrists, as I have noted. Again, who are "they"? The Epicurean school taught atomism until they were shut down by that unpleasant Christian bigot the Emperor Justinian.As for the further history of atomism: It wasn't the pagans who shut down the Epicureans, or introduced the death penalty for atomism. It was Christians. What makes you say that? They were certainly aware of the constancy of nature, so much so that some proposed an eternal universe.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But my dear chap ...A look through the Bible shows that not only is God constantly breaking his own laws (turning water into wine, making donkeys talk, that sort of thing) --- and not only does he also delegate this power to his chosen saints and prophets --- but also he lets other much less savory people go about breaking them (the witch of Endor, Pharaoh's magicians, Simon Magus).Consequently, Christians were able to attribute whatever they couldn't understand to God, saints, demons, and witches.What you just described is Deism. I shall have something to say about that in a moment, but first I must attend to my parsnips. Except that you yourself would claim, presumably, to understand the doctrine that you've just enunciated, and you spend most of your time on these forums running away from science as fast as your legs will carry you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh, don't be silly.That's exactly why I don't believe in God.A reasonably moral man who was in the neighborhood of the murder would do everything he could to stop it. But you invite me to believe that a perfectly moral being who is permanently in all neighborhoods at once and can stop whatever he likes sits on his hands instead. Well, either he isn't good, or he isn't everywhere, or he has no power to intervene, any of which disqualifies him from being God as traditionally defined.It's precisely the fact that I'm appalled at evil that makes belief impossible for me, and I never believe less in the possibility of God than when I hear of such things.

You are trying to deceive me about what my own opinions are. This is not likely to be successful. I find your argument tenuous. If a dog-breeder believes that pit-bulls should be less aggressive, and successfully breeds them to be so, that does not mean that the dogs believe the dog-breeder. Which would make him completely unlike the being described in the Old Testament. If God existed, than I would think it benevolent to give me no more option of denying that than I have of denying that I have two legs. I should not find it a mark of benevolence in him to allow me to become confused about how many legs I have. Or not.I might as well argue that you "believe evolution". And yet you used the latter phrase. You wrote: "That said, unbelievers do believe in God all the time."Retreat from this position if you will, but don't deny that you expressed it.