If you want me to accept your argument, you're going to have to provide me with peer-reviewed, scientific, plausible, repeatable, experimental proof
of the non-existence of deity.
Go for it.
I dare you.
I do get your point; I am afraid you missed mine. I acknowledged your personal position, and complimented it. What I was pointing out was that both
candidates quoted have gone on record as speaking to teaching the controversy; when there is no controversy within the scientific community. It demonstrates
that both have a very flawed understanding of the core tenets of science; which is disturbing.
Now as to your more recent request; concerning the non-existence of a diety and the closed-minded insult that accompanied it. I am thoroughly open minded,
just not so much that I let my brain slide out and slap against the floor like a jello pudding. I like my magic and fantasy in books and games.
Now onto your challenge. I cannot prove god doesn't exist. No more so than I can prove that Russel's Celestial Teapot does not exist, or magical
fairies and the base of the garden, or Bert the Magic Penguin in his Sardine Scented Chariot or Sagan's Garage Dragon. What I can do is assign a
mathematical probability; based on observable, repeatable evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of god. No mechanism by which he/she/it can be
detected. No means of determining which force he/she/it uses to move the universe around. It is a technical agnostism; I am willing to examine the evidence,
but there has to be some first. Now this is a theist interpretation of god, a god that actively messes with the universe.
I should also note that it is not just your god. Anyone's god. And Leprauchans. And Leper-chauns (Like Leprauchauns only losing it a piece at a
time.) Magical Pink Unicorns. For some reason, not believing in magical pink unicorns does not make you a militant a-unicornist.
Intelligent Design, Creationism, call it what you will; is an entirely appropriate subject for discussion in philosophy for the simple reason that it
cannot be factually proven. All of the counter-examples you've given are eminently factually provable, and thus are totally invalid
counter-examples.
But you are quite wrong here. Creationism and Intelligent design can be refuted, but offering evidence that they are not a required mechanism. Intelligent
design has been thoroughly refuted using the very examples that its adherents clung too like so many direputable barnacles. The eye. The bacterial flaggelum.
The immune system. All of which can be explained eloquently through evolution by natural selection. This also goes for creationism. First you choose your
particular creationist story; whether from Genesis, the Enuma Elish and vet it historically/scientifically; using the same method you would use to refute the
claims I made above.
What does the Global Flood of Noah or the Garden of Eden in Genesis say about biology? Quite a bit if they happened. they did not. The evidence does not
support them. Is the flood just a parable. That's great. Adam and Eve just a parable? Great. We can approximate the age of the universe at about 14
billion years; but god only god around to creating the earth some 4.5 billion years ago. Therapsids about 285 Millions years ago. The first primates 65
million years.
Shayne
of the non-existence of deity.
Go for it.
I dare you.
I do get your point; I am afraid you missed mine. I acknowledged your personal position, and complimented it. What I was pointing out was that both
candidates quoted have gone on record as speaking to teaching the controversy; when there is no controversy within the scientific community. It demonstrates
that both have a very flawed understanding of the core tenets of science; which is disturbing.
Now as to your more recent request; concerning the non-existence of a diety and the closed-minded insult that accompanied it. I am thoroughly open minded,
just not so much that I let my brain slide out and slap against the floor like a jello pudding. I like my magic and fantasy in books and games.
Now onto your challenge. I cannot prove god doesn't exist. No more so than I can prove that Russel's Celestial Teapot does not exist, or magical
fairies and the base of the garden, or Bert the Magic Penguin in his Sardine Scented Chariot or Sagan's Garage Dragon. What I can do is assign a
mathematical probability; based on observable, repeatable evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of god. No mechanism by which he/she/it can be
detected. No means of determining which force he/she/it uses to move the universe around. It is a technical agnostism; I am willing to examine the evidence,
but there has to be some first. Now this is a theist interpretation of god, a god that actively messes with the universe.
I should also note that it is not just your god. Anyone's god. And Leprauchans. And Leper-chauns (Like Leprauchauns only losing it a piece at a
time.) Magical Pink Unicorns. For some reason, not believing in magical pink unicorns does not make you a militant a-unicornist.
Intelligent Design, Creationism, call it what you will; is an entirely appropriate subject for discussion in philosophy for the simple reason that it
cannot be factually proven. All of the counter-examples you've given are eminently factually provable, and thus are totally invalid
counter-examples.
But you are quite wrong here. Creationism and Intelligent design can be refuted, but offering evidence that they are not a required mechanism. Intelligent
design has been thoroughly refuted using the very examples that its adherents clung too like so many direputable barnacles. The eye. The bacterial flaggelum.
The immune system. All of which can be explained eloquently through evolution by natural selection. This also goes for creationism. First you choose your
particular creationist story; whether from Genesis, the Enuma Elish and vet it historically/scientifically; using the same method you would use to refute the
claims I made above.
What does the Global Flood of Noah or the Garden of Eden in Genesis say about biology? Quite a bit if they happened. they did not. The evidence does not
support them. Is the flood just a parable. That's great. Adam and Eve just a parable? Great. We can approximate the age of the universe at about 14
billion years; but god only god around to creating the earth some 4.5 billion years ago. Therapsids about 285 Millions years ago. The first primates 65
million years.
Shayne