Jaim: “This is not what Evolutionary science says. Dumbass.”

And that’s really all that needs to be said.

This is not what Evolutionary science says. Dumbass.

The argument that’s laid out above is one of the best I can think of that demonstrates the nature of critical thinking. On some level, it’s less to do with God and religion than it has to do with the nature of skepticism and rationality on the simplest of levels.

When people start denying evolutionary theory from a religious POV, or when people start asserting that it’s my responsibility to disprove God instead of the other way around (like OW has on many occasions) – it irritates me. I want people to be smarter. I think people SHOULD be smarter.

However, in the absence of this proof, I refuse to give the religious any more respect or affordances than I do the believer in Bigfoot. The only difference between the two beliefs is in popularity of the idea.

One thing left though…

“especially the burden of proof argument(Because you said so?)”

No, not simply because I said so. Because it’s the appropriate, scientific approach to take. Listen, I could tell you that there’s a magical fairy that lives in my left ear and tells me to burn things. You, of course, would think that I’m crazy and that there is no fairy… unless I provide you with proof. If I scooped her out of my ear and slapped her on the table in front of you, you would have no choice but to concede that the fairy exists, and that you were wrong.

Imagine, for a second, the other route you could take. You could choose to believe me, absent of proof. Clearly, that’s a stupid position to take. Simply because something is POSSIBLE (sure, it’s possible there’s a fairy living in my ear) doesn’t make it necessarily true (there’s almost certainly NOT a fairy living in my ear).

The same principle applies to Bigfoot, aliens, the Loch Ness monster, leprechauns, vampires, and intelligent conservatives – simply asserting that these things exist, minus proof, is completely worthless. It’s not up to me, the skeptic, to prove to YOU that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. You have to present a compelling case that it DOES. The only logical, fair default position is skepticism.

Now, tell me why this should be any different for the existence of God? Why should it be up to the skeptic to prove God doesn’t exist? Why is the default position, the null hypothesis, “God exists”? It shouldn’t be. And it’s not, except in the brains of those that fail to recognize rational thought.

Spider J,
Hmm. I guess you said what I was thinking better than I did. My main point is that presupposing atheists and thier non or no belief system makes them any different from others. I definetly don’t think atheists are hard wired or thier thoughts lead them to evil ends. Quite the contrary. I wanted to mostly point out that man is inherently stupid and capable of evil.

“atheist is believe that there is no God; everything else is a personal decision. Atheists can believe that the human race was created by evolution or they can believe that the planet was populated by settlers from Kobol”- I guess I just believe thier is a God and suppose he has a name, but being a Christian, I don’t think the bible is infallible(Jesus, does this piss my sister off royally). I also will not presuppose that people who don’t think as I do are wrong. I for one welcome our overlords from the planet Kobol.:)

Read The Beak of the Finch.

Read The Origin of Species.

Read something, man. Jesus.

It’s not a leap of faith to understand that all lifeforms evolved from prior variations, that all species currently in the biosphere have evolved from ancestral beings.

Look at the paleontological evidence that relates dinosaurs to modern birds. There are freaking feathered dinosaurs, man! Explain Archaeopteryx!

You’re a delusional fool.

How so? Do you know what can happen over 100 million years?

Please don’t talk about leaps of faith, m’kay? You believe in a book that is filled with them, cover to cover.

If Noah collected only 2 of every animal on earth before the Great Flood, why are there so many variations of the same animals? Why is the platypus only found in Australia? What is up with platypuses (platypi?) anyway?

According to evolution or what I call the “magic of father time” the train of thought is that amphibians evolved from fish, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and mammals evolved from reptiles.

That is a real leap of faith.

Pwnage! Guess you showed us.

Could you please explain what you mean by “the magic of time”?

I think that because the earth is only 6500 years old, and this “theory” explains things that happened millions of years ago, it would have to be magic, right? QED.

Could you please explain what you mean by “the magic of time”?

Eight years ago, scientists found a rare, snow-white, non-albino emperor penguin.

http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e010908/e010908.html

This is an example of a mutation that specifically increases the chances of this particular animal to survive in its all-white surroundings, as it is harder for predators to see.

And that’s the idea at the heart of Darwinism, EIJAB–that mutations in a species make it more likely for those members of those species to survive in the conditions of their environment, and therefore more likely to pass along their genes. Over “the magic of time” (what…you don’t believe in time?), the “rare” birds gradually become the majority.

My question for you: do you believe that the human beings who lived during the Ice Age were as mentally or physically developed as the human beings we are now? Because either you believe in evolution or you believe that the neanderthals just weren’t trying hard enough.

Interestingly, hates it & eat shit are anagrams for the word
atheist, read into it what you will.