Answering The Ignorant – Evolution
Matt’s Notepad has a great article in which he debunks some of the most well known Creationist / ID arguments concerning Evolution.
The arguments can be found here: http://mattcbr.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/repeated-ignorant-creationistid-arguments-a-solution/
Some similar arguments that debunk Creationism have been written by Talk Origins, and Richard Dawkins has a list of “Debate Points” that cover Evolution, atheism, and faith that you might find interesting.
Categories: belief, creationism, evolution, science
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
A Thing that has not yet been disproved … can hold it’s reasonable assumption that it exist; And as long as a Thing remain unproven, it can maintain it’s greatest possibility of being so. Indeed in this world, Intelligent Design has faltered, but because the beautiful and shinning crystal glass was shattered when it fell to the floor, doesn’t mean it’s Superior Design didn’t exist before it’s fragments were disarranged.
So Knowing what I am sure of, there is no need to debate rather or not that ‘We’ of Intelligent Mind Souls were Designed or a mishap of evolutionized procedures of a natural development. I stand In full knowledge of my Creator.
I am just an Old Sold passing through, with something important to say.
Never miss an answer for Today’s Mystical Concerns All Around Us;
Planet X, UFOs, reptilian colonies, celestial colonies, Lucifer, rapture,
Beelzebub, Satan, inseminated babies, clones, earth’s core ignites,
VISIT THE ENLIGHTENING SITE OF SOD http://sod2008.multiply.com
register as a friend … ask questions … leave comments …or email me at
evelynseedofdavid@gmail.com
This argument was refuted more than a century ago.
While something that has not been disproven could possibly exist, as long as it has not been proven either it is not logical to believe in exists.
God is one of these things that has not been proven or disproven…Russell's teapot is another.
Russell's teapot is a teapot that, if it exists, is orbiting the sun between earth and mars. Bertrand Russell said that we cannot prove or disprove the existance of the teapot, but the idea of a celestial teapot is absurd, and so while we can't be sure of its nonexistance, it is only logical to disbelieve it. The only good reason any of us would believe in the teapot is if the teapot was proven to exist.
Other examples are the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't prove or disprove the existance of either, but nobody actually believes in the existance of an invisible pink unicorn or a monster made of spaghetti.
God works in the same way. As we cannot prove or disprove his existance, he could exist, but it is illogical to believe so because the idea of a omnipotent deity (especially if you are looking at the Abrahamic one, who isn't perfect in any way) is absurd (although not to the extent of the other examples) without evidence to back it up.
The only reason anyone believes in a deity is because of indoctrination…if we were to indoctrinate people from a young age to believe in a celestial teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster, then people would believe in those things like people today believe in God.
This argument was refuted more than a century ago.
While something that has not been disproven could possibly exist, as long as it has not been proven either it is not logical to believe in exists.
God is one of these things that has not been proven or disproven…Russell's teapot is another.
Russell's teapot is a teapot that, if it exists, is orbiting the sun between earth and mars. Bertrand Russell said that we cannot prove or disprove the existance of the teapot, but the idea of a celestial teapot is absurd, and so while we can't be sure of its nonexistance, it is only logical to disbelieve it. The only good reason any of us would believe in the teapot is if the teapot was proven to exist.
Other examples are the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't prove or disprove the existance of either, but nobody actually believes in the existance of an invisible pink unicorn or a monster made of spaghetti. If there was real evidence to support their existance then it would be another matter.
God works in the same way. As we cannot prove or disprove his existance, he could exist, but it is illogical to believe so because the idea of a omnipotent deity (especially if you are looking at the Abrahamic one, who isn't perfect in any way) is absurd (although not to the extent of the other examples) without evidence to back it up.
The only reason anyone believes in a deity is because of indoctrination…if we were to indoctrinate people from a young age to believe in a celestial teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster, then people would believe in those things like people today believe in God.
It is only logical if something is neither proven or disproven to take the negative as true until contrary evidence is found.
While I agree with you that anything not yet disproved can hold a reasonable argument for it’s existence (Evolution in particular), I have to quote Hitchens on your reversal of this argument:
“Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
Just because an argument works one way, doesn’t mean you can reverse it and make it work in the opposite direction. “gods” have been asserted without any testable or observable evidence, and thus we can also dismiss them without evidence.
Also, what is mystical about “Planet X”? It was discovered a few years ago…
Actually, astronomers would ask, “which planet X are you referring too?” Given there are more than one… That’s why Pluto is now classified as a Dwarf Planet along with two others and any more we may find…
Also one of the Planet Xs actually has greater mass than Pluto.