Yes, I do. Because you are talking about looking at data gathered from various sources not to derive a possible and unknown conclusion that fits the facts and other related proven theories and facts, but instead saying ‘here is what I, as a religious and learned woman, want to make convincing to people and choose to believe is fact for myself by pointing at tidbits of a much bigger picture.’
I am sure there are interesting facts and research out there that will expand our understandings of the infantile science of genetics and biological history, but I seriously doubt Occam’s razor will point through millions of pieces of independent and years of scientific research being wrong, and that a ghost who lives in the sun who existed before time and space created the world in six days.
The difference is that at some point in your facts you need to make a leap of faith that there is a supernatural God to have created the world in order for the facts to be persuasive in your desired context, and that’s the deal breaker. Then we start looking at other data and find there are much more reasonable explanations for the odd facts and data we may not understand yet.
Correct, we cannot completely rule out the existence of supernatural entities any more than anyone has been able to scientifically prove they do exist. But, we can look at the level of likely hood that mythological accounts are factual, base that on the scientists who have looked for such evidence in a non-biased and honest method, and we can test to rule out the literal accounts taken from certain sources of literature… such as the Bible. Which, from a literal standpoint, never happened on many accounts therein. I'm sure that if I wanted to I could select what data I wanted and prove lightning is in fact hurled by Zeus from the clouds.
So what your saying is that if you take a group of ten robot atheist scientists who have never heard of any concepts of religion(An un pre-biased control group) and show them nothing but data and no philosophy… they will discover that there is evidence to deduce the undeniable existence of a supernatural creator. Sounds far fetched, but maybe an interesting sci-fi story. How much you wanna bet it wouldn’t follow the Christian dogma?
I would really love to go on, but it is 1 am, and I have to teach tomorrow. So, I’ll just say that your arguments that evolution has no provable clear evidence are rubbish as stated in our above and previous arguments.
Yes, I do. Because you are talking about looking at data gathered from various sources not to derive a possible and unknown conclusion that fits the facts and other related proven theories and facts, but instead saying ‘here is what I, as a religious and learned woman, want to make convincing to people and choose to believe is fact for myself by pointing at tidbits of a much bigger picture.’
I am sure there are interesting facts and research out there that will expand our understandings of the infantile science of genetics and biological history, but I seriously doubt Occam’s razor will point through millions of pieces of independent and years of scientific research being wrong, and that a ghost who lives in the sun who existed before time and space created the world in six days.
The difference is that at some point in your facts you need to make a leap of faith that there is a supernatural God to have created the world in order for the facts to be persuasive in your desired context, and that’s the deal breaker. Then we start looking at other data and find there are much more reasonable explanations for the odd facts and data we may not understand yet.
Correct, we cannot completely rule out the existence of supernatural entities any more than anyone has been able to scientifically prove they do exist. But, we can look at the level of likely hood that mythological accounts are factual, base that on the scientists who have looked for such evidence in a non-biased and honest method, and we can test to rule out the literal accounts taken from certain sources of literature… such as the Bible. Which, from a literal standpoint, never happened on many accounts therein. I'm sure that if I wanted to I could select what data I wanted and prove lightning is in fact hurled by Zeus from the clouds.
So what your saying is that if you take a group of ten robot atheist scientists who have never heard of any concepts of religion(An un pre-biased control group) and show them nothing but data and no philosophy… they will discover that there is evidence to deduce the undeniable existence of a supernatural creator. Sounds far fetched, but maybe an interesting sci-fi story. How much you wanna bet it wouldn’t follow the Christian dogma?
I would really love to go on, but it is 1 am, and I have to teach tomorrow. So, I’ll just say that your arguments that evolution has no provable clear evidence are rubbish as stated in our above and previous arguments.
Reply
Leave a comment