Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.


Tuesday, September 7, 2010

The double standard of proof.

If anyone follows the comments, you see that Joshua and I are at it again. As a postscript to this round, I hope, I am going to bring up something that I'm sure will be veeerrrry controversial. To wit: If Joshua held his belief in evolution to the same standards as he holds My belief in God, he'd be forced to reject it. The devil, you say? Let me go through the proofs for God's existence that I have posed and he has rejected, and apply the same standard to evolutionary theory.

Proof #1: Proof of the Bible. I believe that this is the inerrant, uncompromised Word of God, Taken down by Holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and providentially protected by the One who made everything in the Universe. Joshua would say it was written by men, changed over the centuries in countless recopies and revisions, and nobody knows what the original of any of the books said.

I say, then, let's apply this same stringency to the prime textbook of evolution, Darwin's Origin Of Species. This book has gone through many reprintings since its first edition 150 years ago; by 1959, an index to all the changes made had to be published. The only way one can know what Darwin really said is to have THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, which is basically what Bible doubters demand of believers. Only then could you footnote any subsequent text that quotes Darwin or references his theories. I can only assume Joshua does not have such a manuscript.

Proof # 2: Proof of Observation. I firmly believe in Romans 1: 20, which says,
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Joshua would say that those observations are supposition, colored by the beliefs of the observer, and not valid as a proof. I say much of Darwin's evidence was based on observing the adaptations of a group of inbred birds on a remote island, and much evidence afterwards is of a similar vein. You find what you look for, right? Therefore, most of the collected "evidence" of evolution must be tossed out.

Proof # 3: Proof by revelation. When I say that God has revealed Himself to me in so many different ways, I am told that it is my imagination deluding me. I say, then revealed evidence through the fossil record is invalid; you cannot prove the parent-offspring relationship that shows the transition by dead bones, no matter how you test them. "Believing something you cannot prove is lazy and idiotic". You cannot prove a relationship you yourself did not observe.

Proof # 4: Proof of Faith. Faith, I am told, is not valid as proof, I am told, because just because I believe one God doesn't invalidate someone else's faith in another god, so I cannot know if my God is the true God. True enough, so far as it goes. But, that means that just because some people believe in evolution, it does not invalidate creationism, as others believe in. Therefore, we cannot know for sure if evolution is true, no matter how much faith we put in the body of scientific evidence.

Proof #5: Proof by concrete evidence. This, Joshua tells me, is the only thing that would change his mind. There was once a man named Thomas who felt the same way.
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

I have to say then, in order for all things to be equal, that the only proof that would be acceptable by the "Joshua standard of proving God" would be that one would have to personally observe the birth of evolved offspring from the parent, and exhaustively test the DNA of both, before one could prove evolution.

Now, I don't expect Joshua or anyone else to go through all this. In fact, I can accept evolution to the point that it was part of the Master's plan. Nor does any of this need to be refuted or deconstructed. The whole point is, that there is no way for anyone to prove the existence of God to such a closed thought process. If Joshua needs to see God firsthand in order to believe, or wants to use God's non-compliance to justify his beliefs, fine. But if I don't expect him to go through all this, why should he ask it of me?

Epilogue: the rest of the story of Thomas:
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


  1. Alright, Here we go :-)

    Proof 1
    The problem with this arguement is that you assume that everyone that believes in evolution does so only because of Darwin's Origin of the Species. This is not the case. It's true that Darwin's book was the starting point, but the scientific method doesn't work by sticking to the original source material. Science works because it takes a hypothesis and then modifies it as new information comes along. Reading the original book would be an interesting read, but one does not need to read it to get an accurate understanding of evolution.

    Proof 2
    Again you don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. When using the scientific method you are not trying to prove the hypothesis that you have just made. You are instead trying to disprove it. If you can't disprove it then it becomes a theory, if parts of if have been proven beyond a doubt then those parts become a law and the rest of it stays a theory. This is why we have both Gravitational Law and Gravitational Theory. Countless people over the years have tried to disprove The Theory of Evolution, but none have been able to.

    Proof 3
    This argument is flaw because you assume that the only proof we have of evolution is through fossils. This is not true. If fact scientist have witnessed evolution occurring in drug resistant bacteria. We have also witnessed evolution through selective breeding. It's really easy to witness in selective breeding of dogs. The Labradoodle for example came into existence in 1955 by breeding a Labrador and a Poodle.

    Proof 4
    It is true that just because someone believes in evolution it doesn't invalidate someone's faith in creationism. The problem is when people try to pass off creationism as a scientific theory. Creationism isn't a scientific theory because it doesn't meet the standard of
    1. Make a TESTABLE hypothesis
    Creationism predicts something that by it's very nature cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore it is not testable
    2. Scientific theories must be natural.
    Creationism is a supernatural explanation

    Proof 5
    Explain to me why it was okay for Jesus to show himself to Thomas 2000 years ago, but god is unable to prove himself to people today.
    Other than that I'm not going to argue this point seeing as I've already dis-proven most of it above. It is obvious by this point that you need to do a little research and develop a better understanding of the scientific method and the theory of evolution.

    You seem to think that not believing something without proof is a close minded way of thinking.
    So if I told you that Elvis is sitting in my living room right now drinking tea and listening to The Ramones you would just believe me?
    A. You would probably call me a nut job and you might try to get me commited if I sincerely believe it. B. On the off chance you to were willing to hear me out on the subject you would demand some sort of evidence. This is not close minded.

    I stole this from another site, but I believe this properly portrays how ridiculous christianity seems to me.

    The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanitity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

    It is not unreasonable or close minded of me to demand some kind of proof (Nor would it be unreasonable for anyone to demand some sort of proof.) when presented to extraordinary claims.

  2. Okay, first response- you failed to pay attention vis-a-vis this:
    " Nor does any of this need to be refuted or deconstructed. The whole point is... if I don't expect him to go through all this, why should he ask it of me?" The whole thing was about one thing: fair is fair.
    Second responce: Yes, I used Darwin because it is the prototype evolution book, just as the Bible is the prototype Christianity book. My point being if you give it the same standard of verification that you force me to have for the Bible, this is what you get.
    Third response:I haven't disproved evolution, you haven't disproved God. Fair enough.
    Foruth responce: If a labradoodle is evolution, how come dogs return to natural mutt-state eventually in the wild. Sounds more like forced adaptation to me. Seems to me they wouldn't breed by choice just to avoid the silly name.
    Fifth responce: call me when the testable hypothesis turns an amoeba into a fish.
    Sixth response: Because we are now under the covenant of grace. God manifested Himself as a human being 2000 years ago in front of eyewitnesses. That testimony is sufficient for believers, because we are under grace. And, many exeptional people have received the benefit of Christ appearing to them in the flesh, most notably Paul. Where you are unfair to my beliefs is that you require Him to appear TO YOU. Newsflash my friend: whether mine or someone else's, gods do NOT serve mortals. If the Jews who "believed" in Jesus' Father only rated "the sign of Jonah", how far do you think you'll get?
    Seventh responce: A bear and a rabbit are taking a crap in the woods. The bear asks, "Do you have trouble with shit sticking to your fur?" The rabbit says, "Why, yes I do." So the Bear picked him up and used him for t.p. Moral: If subtle humour goes unappreciated, tell an obnoxious joke.
    Responce eight: Please tell Elvis that Bum Phillips left him tickets to the game Sunday at the "will call" window. (True story.)
    Finale: I agree that you should have proof, especially in something as important as this. All I was saying is you demand a proof you'll never get this side of death, and thus you are missing out on the wonderful proofs sprinkled throughout the multiverse. Toodles.

  3. First Response:
    Lol, I did pay attention to you saying "Nor does any of this need to be refuted or deconstructed"
    I just ignored it.

    Second Response:
    I fail to see the comparison that you're trying to make between the bible and Darwin's Origin of the species. Scientist don't use Darwin's origin of the species when they discuss evolution, they use the latest research. If that research contradicts something in Darwin's book then the research wins.
    With the Bible this is different. I a Christian says something different that the bible, the bible wins. I have a problem with this because if you haven't noticed, the bible says some pretty awful things.

    Third Response:
    Lol, at least we agree on something

    Fourth Response:
    A mutt isn't a specific breed of dog, but rather a mixture of many different types of dogs. It would only make sense that mutts are more common in the wild because there's nothing to control their breeding. Adaption is what evolution is all about. Animals evolve over time to adapt to the changing environment.

    Fifth Response:
    amoeba evolved into fish over millions and millions of years. Once we have millions and millions of years of research data to work with I probably will be able to show you a testable hypothesis (Expect for the fact that neither of us will be alive)

    Sixth Response:
    I'm not sure the point that you're trying to make here. Can you show me reliable documentation of Jesus appearing to someone? Because if someone told me that Jesus had appeared to them I would be sincerely worried about their mental health.

    Seventh Response:
    Again I fail to see the point that you're trying to make here. Funny Joke though. I think that you're trying to tell me that you thought my joke was obnoxious, if that's the case then my point got across.

    Eighth Response:
    ??? I'm not sure if you're serious here and that scares me a little

    I'm glad that you agree with me that proof is important.
    Unfortunately you seem to think that I am unable to appreciate the beauty of the world without Jesus in my life. I think that the world is more beautiful when you stop assigning natural wonders with supernatural explanations.

  4. First resp. : one point for touche, one negative point for failing to follow directions.
    Second resp: only for those on God's wrong side.
    Third resp: good, case closed.
    Fourth: but all those breeds were adapted from the original mutt.
    Fifth: (Expect for the fact that neither of us will be alive)
    Ah, wily Jormungand cuts to the heart of the matter.
    Sixth:Because if someone told me that Jesus had appeared to them I would be sincerely worried about their mental health.
    Thus eliminating my need to bother. I would give these examples to be a help to you, but not to make others an article of your derision.
    Seventh: simply put, you don't do a very good job of seeing my subtle jokes as humour, so I threw in a non-germaine joke just so you could tell when I'm telling one. It had nothing to do with your zombie thing which was totally tasteless and beneath comment.
    Eighth: Phillips used to be the coach of the Houston Oilers. He always left Elvis tickets at the "will call" window because he didn't believe he died.
    Finale: "it's only you and me and we just disagree. oooh ooh ooh ..."