I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.
At one time, the vast majority of people believed that the Sun moved about the Earth. They were wrong.
Just because a belief is popular does not make it true, nor does it make it scientific.
The people who said the Earth is flat, and all the other stuff about the Earth being the centre of the universe and all that stuff where actually the scientist's of the day, the popular conceptions of those days where propagated by scientists.
The scientific method had not been discovered yet, so that is far from true. The scientific revolution came about because relying on beliefs had been shown to be wrong. The whole idea was to leave beliefs behind and instead base your inferences on empirical facts, and test those ideas against empirical facts. The people who proclaimed that the Sun moved about the Earth did not use this method, and were therefore not scientists.
You're using the term, "fact" as an epithet, stated, ad nasueum. I've highlighted the propaganda/rhetoric. It is used as a superfluous, extraneous input.
It is no different than your use of epithets such as "materialism" or "naturalism".
To be evolutionist, you need to have been taught by evolutionists, that's all, and you need credulity when it comes to believing men's limited induction tallies, are wiser than the God that created the universe.
Any living thing no matter how small and simple looks, is far too complex, has got far too much parts interacting together to be the result of unplanned events
Would you say you don't need any faith to accept the theory of evolution?
Nope. We have evidence which negates the need for faith.
you can read this website or any other, or any book. That alone is not evidence at all, you are just believing in what other people is writing, you are basically having faith in them
I am talking about the real world where real people have sequenced real genomes and compared them. I am talking about real fossils from the real world. These are not empty claims with no evidence behind them. These are facts.
I have the experience of living and observing the world around me,
When was the last time you compared the anatomy of fossils to one another? When was the last time you sequenced DNA, or did an alignment of DNA? When was the last time you used shared and derived features to construct a phylogeny?
I have a feeling that you have no experience in biology.
And I am honest to recognize that God did it all,
Since when are empty claims considered honesty?
You are just assuming that evolution is a fact, but nevertheless.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
quote:Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/...gould_fact-and-theory.html
I guess we can add the scientific method to the things you don't undernstand and have no experience with.
I am not here to be arrogant or to claim any kind of theory or even hypotheses. I am merely pointing out that there is a statistic out there that seems distasteful to the scientific community even though it is a product of the human brain, the same brain which is responsible for the entire human knowledge.
Also, there are many products of the human mind that are distasteful such as racism and hatred.
But when it comes to evolutionary or any issue relating distant past I become very skeptic . . .
Unless it is written by a goathearder from 500 BC who claims to speak for a deity, then you swallow it whole without even looking at the evidence.
You are happy to 'believe' what you were taught. You are not the only one who believes things, everybody does, but many don't want to recognize that they consider something to be true as long as they believe in it, rather than have a real evidence to support their theories
Coupling this with the modern understanding of the physiological complexity of the human brain within the evolution of the universe how can belief not be classed as a scientific quantity?
We can study the physiology behind belief, but that doesn't make the beliefs themselves scientific. We can measure brain activity in people who believe in Leprechauns, but this isn't scientific evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. All it is evidence for is the ability of the brain to believe in things that are not real.
But you could also say that with modern understanding of how unbelievably amazing the universe is and how unfathomable a place it really is that modern skeptics are also victims of their own imaginations in thinking that they understand enough of existence and the universe to say with such certainty that there isn't a God. When in reality the true value of how much we actually know is probably more or less nothing compared with what there is to know.
The skeptic does not say that there is no God. The sketpic asks for evidence for God, and upon seeing no evidence sees no reason to believe that God does exist. If and when that evidence is presented, then the skeptic will change their position.
The real question is why believe that there is a God to begin with. If your only answer is that other people are doing it, then you really don't have much of a reason. It gets even worse when you begin to evidence God by pointing to our ignorance.
Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?
It doesn't seem to be a disadvantage for flying squirrels. They can only glide and do not have powered flight.
We could also point to seals which are in between terrestrial mammals and whales as far as their profeciency in water and on land goes.
We could also point to these little buggers, the mudskippers:
They don't have fully formed lungs, legs, or other features for moving about on land, and yet they seem to get along ok. They don't seem to be disadvantaged by having poorly developed adaptations for land dwelling.