Rule #1: There is a god. Rule #2: God is actively influencing the world.
I ask you this. Are the atheists, who started out on the religious side, really putting these 2 rules into consideration when dealing with a fundy?
Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".
I think that most might be willing to keep these in mind when dealing with the religious. However, it is the how God is "influencing" the world that becomes a problem.
The idea that the universe is designed to work the way it does is an ok god-of-the-gaps argument for now. Since I can only say "I don't know" about some questions someone may choose to say "god did it" and I just shrug and leave it for now.
But a fundy is far, far from that position. That isn't what the arguments (for the most part) are about here.
I do know that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, I do know that evolution happened. Contradicting that just seems very foolish. It also has nothing to do with faith in God.
well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE? because I cannot.
No, it is tentative but very certain. The theory has been examined and critised for a many decades and works very well. Tentativeness may reamin but there is not very much at all.
It is, as noted, the best explanation available. That is not taken on faith at all. It is the best explanation for all the available evidence. It may be modified by more evidence but at this point it is very, very unlikely to be totally replaced.
Analogies are a bit dangerous but your choice might be instructive.
Each of your pieces of evidence are the facts of the matter( video, DNA etc.). These correspond to the individual bones of one fossil, the relationship between DNA, the age of fossils, the relationship between them.
However, each single piece of evidence you have given can be wrong or there may be alternative theories which explain them. We pick the best one that seems to fit ALL the available facts. Depending on what we know there will still be a little bit of doubt left.
As you may know fingerprints can be matched erroneously (there is some hint that this happens too often).
You are still 100% sure that you know who the murderer is and, as a jury member, are ready to convict. Then the defense attorney brings in the accused murderers twin. Are you still 100% sure?
In fact, you should not have been before. If each piece of evidence can be wrong there is some chance (perhaps very, very small) that the conclusion is wrong.
The analogy has another valid comparison to evolution. We are pretty darn sure that the murder happened. Just as we know that evolution happened.
What you, in the jury are trying to determine is how it happened. That is analogous to the fact of evolution occuring and the theory of just how it could happen.
The analogy might break down on a quantitive basis if you consider the shear volume of evidence and relationships between all of it in comparison to the miniscule evidence that you would have for any murder case.
Edited to correct two dumb spelling mistakes.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-28-2005 10:41 AM