No. If you are trying invoke Occam's razor, then you should rethink that approach because it favors the human metaphor interpretation.


Snakes are not built to support the jaw-structure necessary for speech.

No it's not. Evolution says nothing about the existence of God(s) just as the theory of gravity says nothing about the existence of God(s). Evolution does "prove" though that Adam and Eve never existed. By "prove" I mean all the evidence points to that conclusion and this evidence is just as strong as the evidence which points to the conclusion that the earth is spherical.

Edit: Oops I totally got lost. Responding to too many posts. Ignore that response since I didn't address the spirit of your response. What I meant to say is it is bull**** because it's unverifiable or unfalsifiable. There's nothing wrong with talking about or speculating on these type of ideas, like the "brain in vat" hypothesis, or multiple universe hypothesis, but to actually believe in any of this would be irrational. So in other words I don't need to assume there's no god to find your claim to be bull****.

I think it's funny how all your ludicrous scenarios are way more plausible than the Christian God idea. All-loving God who sends you to hell for not believing in him. The greatest absurdity that has ever bewitched the human mind.

I think that your ability to reconcile creationism with science stems directly from the fact that you don't understand how science works.

No one (smart) will tell you that science disproves religion, but science does offer mountains of solid reasons not to believe it. When the answer to those reasons is simply immunity from the physical laws of the universe as we know them today, with no tangible proof or precedent, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Your analogy about your wife loving you is absurd. Im sure you could find plenty of logical reasons to believe she loves you based on her actions past and present. Scientifically, the default position should therefore be that she loves you unless someone can definitively prove otherwise. The logical reasons for believing she loves you are simply not there for a literal interpretation of genesis, thus the default position should be that it did not happen unless someone can present evidence to the contrary.

So if anything is possible, how can you argue for your random beliefs over anything else?

I don't and didn't make that claim (you obviously know this, but it bears reinforcement). I said science is the only certifiably reliable method for ascertaining truth. If something is outside of its reaches (which literally means outside of ALL of our human perception), then believing it is certifiably illogical.

You believe you can not only sense that something supernatural exists, but determine the nature of it. You on one hand point to your own perceptions to say that you know God exists and is Jesus Christ, and on the other hand insist those perceptions are outside of the realm of science. We cannot test a being that is designed to definitionally be untestable, but we CAN look at the basis for your claims of religious experience.

Also, here's my speculation on where the "fall of man" idea come. Long time ago humans prayed to Gods to make things happen. They prayed to them to make it rain, to aid their hunts, to make women more fertile, etc. What happened was a lot of times their prayers went unanswered. So what did ancient man do? Instead of concluding their God(s) was just a figment of their imagination, they figured that it was really their own fault. That the reason things didn't go their way sometimes was because God was punishing them. I believe the "fall of man" idea evolved from this concept. It's not God's fault, It's our fault, etc.

All - Fairly sure supernatural snakes can speak.

The point is that it's not helping your case to say that your beliefs are outside the realm of science, because any bull**** belief can make the same claim. How would you respond to them? What system of evaluating these beliefs can you think of that would allow us to reject claims of Islam and Scientology and invisible pink unicorns? They are all outside the realm of science, so what do we do with them? How do we determine whether they are to be rejected?

The truth is only convenient from a perspective of limited information. Basically, the truth is convenient if we don't have enough information to justify our conclusion in the truth.

Of course you could say that this is the case here - we don't understand Christ, and if we did then we'd recognize that these aren't just convenient coincidences. However, you're also suggesting that we will have our souls destroyed as a result of our understandable and reasonable perspective. This is where David's main point comes into play.

Your belief that those who don't share your beliefs will be punished by God prevents you from using reasoning with this degree of flexibility. The condemnation of those who disagree with you creates a rigidity that doesn't allow these more organic perspectives.

A lot of people who identify as Jews are nonreligious or even athiests.

You know how financial data gets seasonally-adjusted?


I think you'll find if this were ingorance-adjusted, it'd be closer to 3%.

This is what's wrong with your thinking. Scientists know man made science is NOT perfect and it also knows that if it cannot deal with something THEN THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMETHING DOESN"T EXIST IT MEANS THAT SOMETHING CANNOT AS YET BE EXPLAINED. Your problem is you want me to believe you know the answer when the evidence you have for that answer is absolutely nothing.

me too actually. I find it very strange. The entire family proudly call themselves jewish yet they're all scientists and have no belief in god whatsoever..

Study in Holland at the university of Wageningen (specialised in bio-industry) pointed also to 2/3rds of the students (future farmers and biologists) not accepting the evolution theory. It took some searching to find the exact question they asked in the poll:

In a logically equivalent (yet somewhat vague and ambiguous) form they stated:
The theory of survival of the fittest solely accounts for all phenomena that have to do with evolution.

Yes
No

I think this is a heavily loaded statement and unfit for a valid poll.

I also don't think 63% of americans reject the theory of evolution, but that more than 13% of the Americans are simply too stupid to understand the question on the poll.

I got a better way to put it. If you made no ASSUMPTIONS you would realize your statement is bull****. You are the one doing the assuming. Not me.

only 2/3 disagreed with that? Should have been 100%.

Wow that's a brutally bad question. What a stupid survey.

The law of inertia solely accounts for all phenomena that have to do with motion.

Analagous IMO. One of those cases where people are giving the right answer for (I assume) the wrong reasons.

That's a ridiculous question. If you polled only evolutionary biologists, it would be 100% no.

+10000000

Mormons at 22%? Sigh......................Well, they didn't ask me or it'd be 22.000000000001%

if i had to guess where poker players would stack up vs the countries on the darwin chart i would say 90% support darwin 8% unsure 2% refute

As a Christian as well as a strong conservative, I have to say that I really do not get the "up in arms!" attitude many of my fellow believers have towards Darwinism. Is it so hard to adjust modern science into your FAITH? Mark me down as a theistic evolutionist until proven otherwise.

I'm glad I don't have to play that game. Sounds exhausting.