Slashdot Mirror
Putting Anti-Evolution Candidates On the Spot
hmccabe writes "YouTube is currently taking submissions for their next debate, in which the Republican candidates will answer questions. This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution. But since I am not an expert in the subject, I would be interested in how you all feel the question should be presented. For my own part, I think it is important to present the overwhelming body of evidence on the subject as incontrovertible fact, much the same way DNA evidence is presented during a criminal trial, and ask why the candidate feels they can pick and choose what facts they believe in. Moreover, I am wary of coming across like Christopher Hitchins, so vitriolic the candidate will defend themselves rather than answer the question. Perhaps the most important aspect of posing the question is to inform the viewers who watch the debate that this is really not a matter of opinion, but of science. So my question is: 'Hey geneticists, have you considered addressing evolution in the YouTube debates? Can you do it in 30 seconds?'"
>We, humans, know that god is fiction because he
:-)
>is OUR fiction. We invented him. We made him up.
So he can't exist, because he is OUR fiction. And William Wallace didn't exist, because he is Mel Gibson's fiction.
>There's those of us who are honest enough to admit
>that god is fiction, Jean-Luc Picard is fiction,
>The Matrix is fiction, Dr. Frankenstein is fiction.
Who's not honest enough to know that The Matrix is fiction? More over, if you see that Picard is an invention, and The Matrix is a creation, why can't YOU be a creation? Religion exists in many forms, has existed in all ages of civilizations, spontaneusly, everywhere, in all places. People feel it inside their body and soul without anyone telling them.
>Claiming that Star Trek is fact is a lie.
By the way, Star Trek IS a fact (the movie/series), anyway, claiming what's shown *did happen* is a lie, BECAUSE we know it's not the case.
>Claiming that it "might be" fact or "could be" fact is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that there's an open question here anywhere is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that any of this is "opinion" is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>And it doesn't become any less of a lie because Mr. Picard is replaced by Mr. Anderson
Because we already know it's not real.
>or Mr God.
You and me, can't probe this. Claiming YOUR specific version of what GOD is fact, is a lie. You don't know. Claiming GOD does not exist is a lie, because you (nor anybody else) can't prove it. The thing is that it may exist, and that existence is independent of YOUR or my beliefs.
So let me have my beliefs, respecting yours, and I'll do the same for you. Else we really have a problem...trying to make me believe what you believe that you CAN'T probe is not fine. And people discovered this centuries ago.
Thanks and regards
unfinished: (adj.)
In actual fact, you are wrong. God is an unfalsifiable concept, so the best you can get is "There is no evidence that God exists," and "There is evidence that God is made up," but neither amount to, "There is evidence God doesn't exist." What all this means is that, for all practical purposes, one can claim God doesn't exist but really, that is not "Fact. Absolute, 100% uncontrovertible[sic] fact."
im in ur