Evidence God Is

[Jose Fly]

I have a 'theory' that creationists cannot afford to let themselves understand evolution, or even the concept of evidence.

Definitely. Understanding might lead to acceptance, which might lead to a crisis of faith, which might lead to loss of purpose and meaning in their life.

Far safer to remain ignorant and protect their emotional well-being. (Or in the case of @nPeace feign offense over some made-up infraction to avoid dealing with the issues raised)

Pretty much most of what we see from creationists falls into the category of "coping mechanisms".

 

[nPeace]

Bacteria are modern organisms but yes, the evidence clearly demonstrates that we came from unicellular life. And that only shows that you used a poor argument and cannot admit your error. Since you just complained about someone else not being honest I would suggest that you practice what you preach.

What did I say, that makes me dishonest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did I say, that makes me dishonest?

Did you not read my post? It is what you did not say. When you make an error and someone points it out ignoring that correction is not honest.

 

[nPeace]

Did you not read my post? It is what you did not say. When you make an error and someone points it out ignoring that correction is not honest.

What was I supposed to say, that I failed to say, that makes me dishonest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was I supposed to say, that I failed to say, that makes me dishonest?

Your memory can't be this short. Look at the errors you made earlier today.

 

[nPeace]

Your memory can't be this short. Look at the errors you made earlier today.

I see none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see none.

Wow, even after two corrections. As the saying goes, "None are so blind as those that will not see".

 

[nPeace]

Wow, even after two corrections. As the saying goes, "None are so blind as those that will not see".

Correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct.

So one question, are you going to keep yourself blind or are you going to try to learn without fear? People that interpret the Bible literally tend to be afraid to learn. They seem to think that if they accept reality that they will have to reject their religion.

 

[nPeace]

So one question, are you going to keep yourself blind or are you going to try to learn without fear? People that interpret the Bible literally tend to be afraid to learn. They seem to think that if they accept reality that they will have to reject their religion.

Funny. If I don't know anything now, how will I learn?
Is it not harder to teach old dogs new tricks?
However, the blind are not the ones understand the Bible.
It's those that love the darkness, and do not go to the light, that they might see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny. If I don't know anything now, how will I learn?
Is it not harder to teach old dogs new tricks?
However, the blind are not the ones understand the Bible.
It's those that love the darkness, and do not go to the light, that they might see.

So you love the darkness? I guess that makes some sort of sense.

EDIT: Don't assume that just because someone does not believe in your God that he cannot understand the Bible. Most atheists became that way through a superior understanding of it. If you find yourself making excuses for the Bible then the odds are that you do not understand it nearly as well as you think that you do.

 

[joelr]

Y

Pi is said to be 3 in Kings. It's an error. It's what one would expect from man, not from a god.
An attempt at pi would be accurate were it words inspired from a god.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you think it would not matter if there is a a creator?
There is. It is right in front of our eyes - the evidence, I mean.
So consider...
Would it not matter, why the creator made a universe, and prepared an ideal home, and put us on it, not just to exist, but to be satisfied?
Would the creator not be concerned that we are ruining this home?

Suppose some officials came to your home, and gave you these documents with your name on it, stating that you have inherited a luxurious home in an ideal location, etc. - everything you dreamed of.
Would it not interest you, as to whom it was that was so generous to give you this, and why, and don't you think the person, if alive, would care if you trashed the house?

Consider...
What if the creator has given man the means to know him, and why he gave us our home, and what he has in store for us and our future?
The Bible fits hand in glove with that - a message from our creator.
It outlines all the above and more.
What if the following is 100% true....
Romans 1:18-20
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Revelation 11:18 
But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

...do you not consider that serious?

Yeah, it's serious mythology. Nothing fits, not the 229 failed prophecies, and the OT being proven to be myth? How does that fit anything except more mythology?

The creator of the universe is an interesting subject. I do wonder if and who created the universe. But I'm not searching for scripture from Zeus or any other man-made cult for answers. And threats from Zeus to non-believers do not bother me.

The only thing that the bible fits is mythology, and it fits 100%
We have already discussed that Jesus is clearly a pagan copy.
The OT has already been shown to be myth by scholarship.
Church-goers and bible people can deny it and pretend like the sciences are wrong but they don't care. Progress moves forward. Educated people do not believe mythology is true. Quoting scripture as if it's not just writings from some ancient writer is hilarious? It's no different than scripture from Zeus.

This is the current status of the archeology of the OT:

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham by Thomas L. Thompson

"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against Thompson, but it is his other books Dever has the most beef against. This one stands stellar and strong. I was absolutely bowled over by it. The second time through is even more astonishing."
Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.

By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.



They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.

So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up.

This is a very important book, it swept away the accumulated dust of centuries and opened up a new, realistic, understanding of the past it described, an understanding that has thoroughly replaced the anachronism of the 'general claim' referred to in the opening line of the review"

Thompsons' work is now a standard in the field and accepted as fact. As it says he freaked out his adviser who happened to be a cardinal and had to work in Canada for over a decade. Eventually the field began reviewing his work and realized it's 100% accurate.

I never understood Pascals wager which is what you're using here? Especially now that scholarship admits it's all myth.

Abraham (who didn't actually exist) actually admits he disliked all the solar gods and made up a better one?
It's in the Q'ran - he disliked the solar myths and had a "revelation" about a Yaweh. Made up!

 

[nPeace]

So you love the darkness? I guess that makes some sort of sense.

EDIT: Don't assume that just because someone does not believe in your God that he cannot understand the Bible. Most atheists became that way through a superior understanding of it. If you find yourself making excuses for the Bible then the odds are that you do not understand it nearly as well as you think that you do.

What you said there seems to suggest that the Bible is a very good book, and it really is true that people become atheist because they think they can create an excuse that gets them off the hook with God.

"Oh, the Bible says this or that."
"Oh, the Bible has contradictions."
"Oh, the Bible is proven wrong by science."
"Oh, the Bible is not clear, because there are numerous interpretations."
........

Does that really get a person off the hook?
Do you really think that making excuses and going into hiding behind a self proclaimed righteousness like - "I live a good life, and don't do harm to others, and I am not like those self-righteous Christians out there arguing about the Bible." - Do you really think that excuses a person? Galatians 6:7 Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap;

Okay, so if it really is the understanding persons have of the Bible that disgusts or turned them from believing in any god, perhaps you can explain why they didn't just throw away the Bible, and join Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other spiritual group?
How did an understanding of the Bible make them godless?

It doesn't add up for me, because I know people who don't believe the Bible to be true, but they still believe in a god.
The reason is they believe a higher power must be responsible for the beauty we see around us.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

I mean, have you ever considered the beauty, and asked yourself,

"How could all of this be a result of random processes and evolution?

There is so much amazing stunning beauty around us.
There is some ugly too, but should that cause us to turn away from our creator?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.

No fossil has ever opened it's "mouth" and spoke, and said, "Nothing made me." So why reject the maker just because you don't like the Bible?

Really, god just means a mighty one, so some people don't think of the creator as being any particular god.
However, since you blame the Bible for rejecting all gods, and you haven't blamed Vishnu or Buddha, then most certainly there must be something special about the Bible.

Could it be that this is true?
Revelation 12:9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
Is there really an evil force trying to prevent us from enjoying this?

 

[joelr]

The state of the academy means nothing to you but a shallow new atheist narrative warms you up? You're really not doing yourself any favor by not just refusing to study a necessary discipline for the subject but also rejecting to take into consideration why people take it as seriously as they do.


So Jesus is a myth in your opinion? I think you've flew in the face of contemporary scholarship enough already so you really shouldn't attempt to contradict the overwhelming consensus in the historical Jesus studies as well.

While the standard position of the field right now is for historicity and against divinity there is good scholarship now supporting the myth position.
He's also won every debate I've seen against some good scholars.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890

So it's not as "out there" as you suggest. I believe he's proven his thesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you said there seems to suggest that the Bible is a very good book, and it really is true that people become atheist because they think they can create an excuse that gets them off the hook with God.

What!? No. Christianity is a religion that "gets you off the hook". Not believing in an immoral God is not an attempt to avoid justice.

"Oh, the Bible says this or that."
"Oh, the Bible has contradictions."
"Oh, the Bible is proven wrong by science."
"Oh, the Bible is not clear, because there are numerous interpretations."

You forgot about the incredibly poor morals of the Bible.

........

Does that really get a person off the hook?
Do you really think that making excuses and going into hiding behind a self proclaimed righteousness like - "I live a good life, and don't do harm to others, and I am not like those self-righteous Christians out there arguing about the Bible." - Do you really think that excuses a person? Galatians 6:7 Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap;

Once again you are projecting your flaws upon others. No one is trying to get off the hook. Perhaps if you understood your Bible better you could see its flaws.

Okay, so if it really is the understanding persons have of the Bible that disgusts or turned them from believing in any god, perhaps you can explain why they didn't just throw away the Bible, and join Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other spiritual group?
How did an understanding of the Bible make them godless?

I would not say "disgusts", but there are quite a few pure evil acts of the god of the Bible. One quickly realizes that those parts are myths so they can't disgust a sane person.
You need to ask proper questions if you expect an answer. Like far too many Christians you have false assumptions buried in your questions.

It doesn't add up for me, because I know people who don't believe the Bible to be true, but they still believe in a god.
The reason is they believe a higher power must be responsible for the beauty we see around us.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Of course. Only the weak in faith demand that one take the Bible literally. But that is just an argument from ignorance on the part of those Christians.

I mean, have you ever considered the beauty, and asked yourself,

"How could all of this be a result of random processes and evolution?

Yes, and the answer is clear. I have to laugh, in your gif you have quite a few examples of humans applying evolution to nature through artificial selection. The mechanisms are very similar to that of natural selection. If you accept one you should accept the other.

There is so much amazing stunning beauty around us.
There is some ugly too, but should that cause us to turn away from our creator?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.

No fossil has ever opened it's "mouth" and spoke, and said, "Nothing made me." So why reject the maker just because you don't like the Bible?

Because the fossils "speak" and tell us that the stories in the Bible are false. You only need to drop your fear and evaluate the evidence without prejudice.

Really, god just means a mighty one, so some people don't think of the creator as being any particular god.
However, since you blame the Bible for rejecting all gods, and you haven't blamed Vishnu or Buddha, then most certainly there must be something special about the Bible.

Could it be that this is true?
Revelation 12:9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
Is there really an evil force trying to prevent us from enjoying this?

Why end your post with a fantasy picture? You only shoot yourself in the foot by doing so. Worse yet you seem to want that lion to starve to death. Or else grab a handy meal by the nearby sources. Either way it does not bode well for you.

If there is any credibility to the Jesus story at all you should be able to drop your fear and learn why the Bible cannot be read literally.

 

[joelr]

What you said there seems to suggest that the Bible is a very good book, and it really is true that people become atheist because they think they can create an excuse that gets them off the hook with God.

"Oh, the Bible says this or that."
"Oh, the Bible has contradictions."
"Oh, the Bible is proven wrong by science."
"Oh, the Bible is not clear, because there are numerous interpretations."
........

Does that really get a person off the hook?
Do you really think that making excuses and going into hiding behind a self proclaimed righteousness like - "I live a good life, and don't do harm to others, and I am not like those self-righteous Christians out there arguing about the Bible." - Do you really think that excuses a person? Galatians 6:7 Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap;

Okay, so if it really is the understanding persons have of the Bible that disgusts or turned them from believing in any god, perhaps you can explain why they didn't just throw away the Bible, and join Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other spiritual group?
How did an understanding of the Bible make them godless?

It doesn't add up for me, because I know people who don't believe the Bible to be true, but they still believe in a god.
The reason is they believe a higher power must be responsible for the beauty we see around us.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

I mean, have you ever considered the beauty, and asked yourself,

"How could all of this be a result of random processes and evolution?

There is so much amazing stunning beauty around us.
There is some ugly too, but should that cause us to turn away from our creator?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.

No fossil has ever opened it's "mouth" and spoke, and said, "Nothing made me." So why reject the maker just because you don't like the Bible?

Really, god just means a mighty one, so some people don't think of the creator as being any particular god.
However, since you blame the Bible for rejecting all gods, and you haven't blamed Vishnu or Buddha, then most certainly there must be something special about the Bible.

Could it be that this is true?
Revelation 12:9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
Is there really an evil force trying to prevent us from enjoying this?

Actually it's super common for people to move away from Christianity and move toward a more Eastern type spirituality.
So that does happen. A lot. But people just realize that NO religion has it correct and it's all about exactly what you said - the universe being awe-inspiring and it could have a creator.

But it isn't a king-in-the-sky "fear my wrath" or "disbelievers go to hell" or involved with some cosmic war with evil satan or obsessions with magic blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice to wash "sin" away.

Many people realize that that is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with the universe.
And as awckward as it is no creator has contacted us and we can't get all the answers we want. Oh well. For many people childish myths give all the answers but others are aware they are myths created by people.

The "evil force" wasn't even in the OT until the Persians invaded Judea and then we see the emergence of all the good vs evil, heaven/hell, savior demigods, it's all Zorastrian mythology.

 

[nPeace]

How did this all come about?
There are two contending views - unguided processes, and intelligent design.
You choose the former, I choose the latter, but don't tell me you are right, because you don't have unfounded assumptions, and I do.

We both are looking at the same evidence, and we both have reasons for arriving at our conclusions.

If you are asked why the humpback whale has tubercles on its flippers, you would probably say nature did it - natural unguided processes.

Spoiler: Tubercle effect

Tubercles on Humpback Whales' Flippers: Application of Bio-Inspired Technology
Today, the relationship between engineering and biology is being reversed. Nature is now being considered as the template for improving mechanical devices and operations, and developing whole new technologies (Benyus 1997; Vogel 1998; Forbes 2005; Bar-Cohen 2006; Muller 2008; Allen 2010).

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is exceptional among the large baleen whales in its ability to undertake aquabatic maneuvers to catch prey. Humpback whales utilize extremely mobile, wing-like flippers for banking and turning. Large rounded tubercles along the leading edge of the flipper are morphological structures that are unique in nature. The tubercles on the leading edge act as passive-flow control devices that improve performance and maneuverability of the flipper. Experimental analysis of finite wing models has demonstrated that the presence of tubercles produces a delay in the angle of attack until stall, thereby increasing maximum lift and decreasing drag. Possible fluid-dynamic mechanisms for improved performance include delay of stall through generation of a vortex and modification of the boundary layer, and increase in effective span by reduction of both spanwise flow and strength of the tip vortex. The tubercles provide a bio-inspired design that has commercial viability for wing-like structures. Control of passive flow has the advantages of eliminating complex, costly, high-maintenance, and heavy control mechanisms, while improving performance for lifting bodies in air and water. The tubercles on the leading edge can be applied to the design of watercraft, aircraft, ventilation fans, and windmills.

Before the mechanics of the flight of birds and bumblebees could be comprehended, knowledge of steady and unsteady aerodynamics was required.

I say, it was designed that way.
Furthermore, man is simply copying the work of the grand designer - the greatest engineer there is.
...and no, no one is invoking God, because they simply don't understand. On the contrary, they do. They understand that the design that is evident in nature, absolutely requires a designer. It's called logic - deductive reasoning / logic - the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Spoiler: A Top Down Approach

Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty. However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning differs from abductive reasoning by the direction of the reasoning relative to the conditionals. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, whereas abductive reasoning goes in the opposite direction to that of the conditionals.

We are taking the evidence and asking, 'What's the best explanation for the evidence we have?'
Science uses abductive reasoning. Correct?
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.

Is one method of logic and reasoning better?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How did this all come about?
There are two contending views - unguided processes, and intelligent design.
You choose the former, I choose the latter, but don't tell me you are right, because you don't have unfounded assumptions, and I do.

We both are looking at the same evidence, and we both have reasons for arriving at our conclusions.

If you are asked why the humpback whale has tubercles on its flippers, you would probably say nature did it - natural unguided processes.

Spoiler: Tubercle effect

Tubercles on Humpback Whales' Flippers: Application of Bio-Inspired Technology
Today, the relationship between engineering and biology is being reversed. Nature is now being considered as the template for improving mechanical devices and operations, and developing whole new technologies (Benyus 1997; Vogel 1998; Forbes 2005; Bar-Cohen 2006; Muller 2008; Allen 2010).

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is exceptional among the large baleen whales in its ability to undertake aquabatic maneuvers to catch prey. Humpback whales utilize extremely mobile, wing-like flippers for banking and turning. Large rounded tubercles along the leading edge of the flipper are morphological structures that are unique in nature. The tubercles on the leading edge act as passive-flow control devices that improve performance and maneuverability of the flipper. Experimental analysis of finite wing models has demonstrated that the presence of tubercles produces a delay in the angle of attack until stall, thereby increasing maximum lift and decreasing drag. Possible fluid-dynamic mechanisms for improved performance include delay of stall through generation of a vortex and modification of the boundary layer, and increase in effective span by reduction of both spanwise flow and strength of the tip vortex. The tubercles provide a bio-inspired design that has commercial viability for wing-like structures. Control of passive flow has the advantages of eliminating complex, costly, high-maintenance, and heavy control mechanisms, while improving performance for lifting bodies in air and water. The tubercles on the leading edge can be applied to the design of watercraft, aircraft, ventilation fans, and windmills.

Before the mechanics of the flight of birds and bumblebees could be comprehended, knowledge of steady and unsteady aerodynamics was required.

I say, it was designed that way.
Furthermore, man is simply copying the work of the grand designer - the greatest engineer there is.
...and no, no one is invoking God, because they simply don't understand. On the contrary, they do. They understand that the design that is evident in nature, absolutely requires a designer. It's called logic - deductive reasoning / logic - the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Spoiler: A Top Down Approach

Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty. However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning differs from abductive reasoning by the direction of the reasoning relative to the conditionals. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, whereas abductive reasoning goes in the opposite direction to that of the conditionals.

We are taking the evidence and asking, 'What's the best explanation for the evidence we have?'
Science uses abductive reasoning. Correct?
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.

Is one method of logic and reasoning better?

Here's the difference. Evolution can demonstrate it's claims. The theory of evolution has explanatory power. You cannot demonstrate your claims. Your belief has no explanatory power.

 

[nPeace]

Here's the difference. Evolution can demonstrate it's claims. The theory of evolution has explanatory power. You cannot demonstrate your claims. Your belief has no explanatory power.

I don't understand. What do you mean, may I ask?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't understand. What do you mean, may I ask?

Organisms evolve. That's a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms involved in how organisms evolve. It provides an explanation as to what happens. The claims of evolution are demonstrable, observable and repeatable. The theory of evolution has explanatory power.

Intelligent design says "God did it." There's no explanation as to how it was done. No description of the mechanisms involved. Basically it just amounts to magic. There are no demonstrations to be made. There are no observable, repeatable facts to be discovered. In fact, most of the claims of ID involve miracles, which are not testable and are not repeatable. ID is not an explanation of anything, because it explains nothing. It has no explanatory power. In other words, it's not an explanation.