6 ms·

The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. The null hypothesis would be that god (or the tooth fairy) doesn't exist until we have sufficien

by JDDunn9 13y ago

The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. The null hypothesis would be that god (or the tooth fairy) doesn't exist until we have sufficient evidence to prove it does exist. As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. "The Greatest Show on Earth" would be a good read as it details many of the proofs of evolution and dismantles the Creationist's pseudo-science.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
In the case of the tooth fairy you ask your parents and they confirm that they paid you money for your teeth in some sort of [weird] ritual. Then the onus is on those who consider the parents to be lying to establish that. I don't think you can honestly say that is akin to the questions of the existence of a personal God or of a controlling mind or of [merely] a creative deity.
- JDDunn9 13y ago
  There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy. Just because your parents paid for your tooth, doesn't mean there isn't a tooth fairy out there. A parent's word alone is pretty weak evidence compared to the overwhelming evidence against a young earth and creationism.
  - Nick_C 13y ago
    Here, I usually ask people not to conflate the existence of a God with creationism. (Perhaps that is a particular U.S. thing?) Ditto with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I was raised and schooled in a religious environment, and no-one believed in creationism. Heck, some of the Jesuit priests were paleontologists. And to give them their credit, irrespective of my beliefs now, the J's were awesome teachers.
  - jimzvz 13y ago
    >There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy. Not really. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the (or any) tooth fairy. It could be argued however, that there is evidence of a god or gods specifically because every universe that we know to exist other than our own has creators. The universes created in computer simulations, dreams, imagination etc all have specific creators who are the gods of those universes. Why would our universe be any different from these?
    - JDDunn9 13y ago
      Almost everything complex we see in the universe has a simple explanation. The galaxies/stars/planets formed because of gravity. Evolution is small gradual steps. Most science equations could fit on 1" of paper. Why would the universe's origins be infinitely complex rather than simple? Why is everything we've ever discovered natural, but the origins are super-natural?
      - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
        Where do the rules of physics come from? (i.e., where does nature come from)
      - jimzvz 13y ago
        I don't quite understand your reasoning. A creator as an explanation for the origins of the universe is as simple as anything else.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      You have a very curious definition of universe, not to mention you are reasoning by analogy. Computer simulations are the interactions between transistors in a CPU, carried by electrons and photons. Dreams are impulses in the neurons of our brains that happen to get stored as memories when we awaken. Our imaginations are also physical processes that take place within our brains. All three of these are on a vastly smaller scale than the universe we inhabit. Do you have some evidence that the actual universe is any of these things?
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    For me there isn't. I've had physical experiences of God; the tooth fairy on the other hand is just a thing people tell their kids to make losing teeth more, er, palatable. God explains creation. There are no competing hypotheses with support (that I can recall just now anyway). I don't mean, big-bang/big-crunch/branes or the like but prime-mover explanations. One might consider perpetual/infinite explanations but they don't avoid the necessary question of how such universes were made. [Subjectively I have as much evidence as I have that the world is real.] Parents actions explains the tooth fairy, it's considered to be true [appeal to authority] except in a cohort that are known to have been lied to, is agreed on globally [appeal to majority] with a possible infinitesimal opposition. [The science bit:] There are no records of instances that contradict the Parent/Guardian theory and no support has been presented for alternate hypotheses.
    - JDDunn9 13y ago
      Invoking a god for creation creates more problems than it solves, because now you have to ask, who created god? Since a god must be more complex than his creation, you created a bigger problem to solve. I believe the current thinking for the "cause" of the big bang is that there was none. That's not unreasonable given how randomness is inherit to quantum mechanics. Also, before there was matter/space, there was also no time for a cause to occur in. While scientists may not fully understand the big bang yet, I'd feel much better betting on a natural, simple explanation than a "god of the gaps" belief, which has been shattered every time science advances.
      - jcromartie 13y ago
        Any belief about the origins of the observable universe rest on a leap of faith. It doesn't matter if it's God or a quantum fluctuation, there is no way to know about anything prior to the origin of the universe (assuming there is one). So it's not a "god of the gaps" explanation, since there is not actually a gap there. If you claim that the cause of the observable universe is a natural phenomenon like quantum mechanics, then it necessarily raises the question "where did the laws of quantum mechanics come from?" The idea that quantum mechanics simply exist for no reason at all is no more plausible than the idea of a creator.
TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
> As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. genetic similarity: When (if) you code, do you invent a new language for every project you do, or do you use the same toolset for several - if not all - of the things you do? Genetic similarity, as the use of a common genetic code for all known life, can be an argument for a creator. It simply depends on what assumptions you make - and this isn't rationalization any more than the mainstream interpretation is, it simply depends on what lens you use. geographic distribution: Most of that is just adaptation, with which I have no problem at all. (assuming I understand your argument correctly) fossil record: There are more "missing links" than there is a chain. We don't even have a nearly complete representation for the evolution that led to a few species known today, and there's even less evidence for the development of the larger features...
- JDDunn9 13y ago
  Genetic similarity is more precise than a generic toolset. We can tell relationships based on how similar their genes are (assuming you don't deny paternity tests). Genetic evaluation tells us that dogs are 100% descendant from wolves, not wolves and coyotes like previously thought. Genes also tell us that we are distant cousins to chimps. Genes are passed on through descendants and you can trace genes back through their family tree. Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer? Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.

by JDDunn9 13y ago

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

In the case of the tooth fairy you ask your parents and they confirm that they paid you money for your teeth in some sort of [weird] ritual. Then the onus is on those who consider the parents to be lying to establish that. I don't think you can honestly say that is akin to the questions of the existence of a personal God or of a controlling mind or of [merely] a creative deity.

JDDunn9 13y ago
There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy. Just because your parents paid for your tooth, doesn't mean there isn't a tooth fairy out there. A parent's word alone is pretty weak evidence compared to the overwhelming evidence against a young earth and creationism.
- Nick_C 13y ago
  Here, I usually ask people not to conflate the existence of a God with creationism. (Perhaps that is a particular U.S. thing?) Ditto with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I was raised and schooled in a religious environment, and no-one believed in creationism. Heck, some of the Jesuit priests were paleontologists. And to give them their credit, irrespective of my beliefs now, the J's were awesome teachers.
- jimzvz 13y ago
  >There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy. Not really. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the (or any) tooth fairy. It could be argued however, that there is evidence of a god or gods specifically because every universe that we know to exist other than our own has creators. The universes created in computer simulations, dreams, imagination etc all have specific creators who are the gods of those universes. Why would our universe be any different from these?
  - JDDunn9 13y ago
    Almost everything complex we see in the universe has a simple explanation. The galaxies/stars/planets formed because of gravity. Evolution is small gradual steps. Most science equations could fit on 1" of paper. Why would the universe's origins be infinitely complex rather than simple? Why is everything we've ever discovered natural, but the origins are super-natural?
    - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
      Where do the rules of physics come from? (i.e., where does nature come from)
    - jimzvz 13y ago
      I don't quite understand your reasoning. A creator as an explanation for the origins of the universe is as simple as anything else.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    You have a very curious definition of universe, not to mention you are reasoning by analogy. Computer simulations are the interactions between transistors in a CPU, carried by electrons and photons. Dreams are impulses in the neurons of our brains that happen to get stored as memories when we awaken. Our imaginations are also physical processes that take place within our brains. All three of these are on a vastly smaller scale than the universe we inhabit. Do you have some evidence that the actual universe is any of these things?
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  For me there isn't. I've had physical experiences of God; the tooth fairy on the other hand is just a thing people tell their kids to make losing teeth more, er, palatable. God explains creation. There are no competing hypotheses with support (that I can recall just now anyway). I don't mean, big-bang/big-crunch/branes or the like but prime-mover explanations. One might consider perpetual/infinite explanations but they don't avoid the necessary question of how such universes were made. [Subjectively I have as much evidence as I have that the world is real.] Parents actions explains the tooth fairy, it's considered to be true [appeal to authority] except in a cohort that are known to have been lied to, is agreed on globally [appeal to majority] with a possible infinitesimal opposition. [The science bit:] There are no records of instances that contradict the Parent/Guardian theory and no support has been presented for alternate hypotheses.
  - JDDunn9 13y ago
    Invoking a god for creation creates more problems than it solves, because now you have to ask, who created god? Since a god must be more complex than his creation, you created a bigger problem to solve. I believe the current thinking for the "cause" of the big bang is that there was none. That's not unreasonable given how randomness is inherit to quantum mechanics. Also, before there was matter/space, there was also no time for a cause to occur in. While scientists may not fully understand the big bang yet, I'd feel much better betting on a natural, simple explanation than a "god of the gaps" belief, which has been shattered every time science advances.
    - jcromartie 13y ago
      Any belief about the origins of the observable universe rest on a leap of faith. It doesn't matter if it's God or a quantum fluctuation, there is no way to know about anything prior to the origin of the universe (assuming there is one). So it's not a "god of the gaps" explanation, since there is not actually a gap there. If you claim that the cause of the observable universe is a natural phenomenon like quantum mechanics, then it necessarily raises the question "where did the laws of quantum mechanics come from?" The idea that quantum mechanics simply exist for no reason at all is no more plausible than the idea of a creator.

TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago

> As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. genetic similarity: When (if) you code, do you invent a new language for every project you do, or do you use the same toolset for several - if not all - of the things you do? Genetic similarity, as the use of a common genetic code for all known life, can be an argument for a creator. It simply depends on what assumptions you make - and this isn't rationalization any more than the mainstream interpretation is, it simply depends on what lens you use. geographic distribution: Most of that is just adaptation, with which I have no problem at all. (assuming I understand your argument correctly) fossil record: There are more "missing links" than there is a chain. We don't even have a nearly complete representation for the evolution that led to a few species known today, and there's even less evidence for the development of the larger features...

JDDunn9 13y ago
Genetic similarity is more precise than a generic toolset. We can tell relationships based on how similar their genes are (assuming you don't deny paternity tests). Genetic evaluation tells us that dogs are 100% descendant from wolves, not wolves and coyotes like previously thought. Genes also tell us that we are distant cousins to chimps. Genes are passed on through descendants and you can trace genes back through their family tree. Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer? Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.