3 ms·
You might as well say "bored teenagers like to light things on fire. Teenagers bored for very long times like to start very large fires. Therefore the fact th
by jlgreco 13y ago
You might as well say "bored teenagers like to light things on fire. Teenagers bored for very long times like to start very large fires. Therefore the fact that the sun is a massive nuclear inferno is evidence that it was created by an incredibly bored teenager."
Of course there is no evidence for this bored teenager, so making guesses as to the circumstances, motivation, and mental functioning of this teenager that could cause him to light up a nuclear inferno is just silly.
- vinceguidry 13y agoI prefer not to use this argument. It's not really all that interesting. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity-like figure, because you can't nail down specifically what they actually are. If a God did exist, it could easily skirt our evidence-based process simply by leaving none. Science is of no help. But we could argue against particular ways that a God might act because action without intent is nonsensical, and a God without sense isn't God.
- jlgreco 13y agoMy point is that because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods, gods have no place in anything that calls itself scientific. If you want to believe in Intelligent Design that is fine, it's a free country, but it isn't a scientific belief and has nothing to do with science.
- vinceguidry 13y agoWhy restrict ourselves to the purely scientific?
- jlgreco 13y agoBecause anything else is offtopic. For some reason people always see fit to bring up their personal religious beliefs when the topic is biology, but it doesn't often get brought up when the discussion is, say, the formation of stars and planets. I don't know why that is, but I know that one tangent is not more appropriate than the other.