jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:That is not true. There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution. Tests, experiments, observations, fossils, DNA, our own work in creating new species (artificial selection), and the best evidence of all, the fact that we are different from our parents. There is so much more evidence for evolution and the way it works than any sort of "supernatural" being.
Also, I should make note that in science there is no distinction between "macro and micro-evolution." I have never heard that among scientists, only ID advocates. It seems like a way to try to have their cake and eat it too. It seems they want to both believe that evolution happens (because of the mountains of evidence) but say that it doesn't happen because they want to continue to believe the creation myth. The problem here is that reality doesn't care what you believe. Reality is the way it is regardless of any one person's belief. My goal is to aline my beliefs as close as possible to reality.
Supernatural beings, by the very name, are nearly impossibly to prove. That is the point. If their impossible to prove, you can't disprove them either and so it makes it easier to believe in them. But the problem is there is little to no evidence for supernatural beings whether they be angels, ghosts, genies, or other beings that have been in mythologies around the world. I wouldn't have a problem believing in it if it was true, no more than I would have a problem believing in giraffes or koalas, but there just isn't any evidence. The other problem with "supernatural" beings is that when they are proven, they are no longer supernatural, they are natural. So you can't believe in them anymore if you want to believe in something supernatural. Thousands of years ago, we thought the sun was supernatural. We've thought blood was supernatural. We thought the brain was supernatural. But none of this stuff is. If you want to continue believing in something "supernatural" you have to give up that belief once it's proven. So in a sense, I don't ever believe anything "supernatural" because the very name implies unproven.
You also must realize, however, that there is more than one way to interperet the evidence.
For example, I have "good" evedence that I have a little brother.
I can see him.
I can feel him when he tugs on my jeans.
I can smell him when he doesn't take a bath.
I can hear him when he screams at me.
I
could taste him if I really wanted to... But I shall not...
Anyway, my senses provide evedence that he is there.
However, I had a dream a few nights ago about my little brother.
I could see him, feel him, hear him, etc.
However, he was not truely there.
He was simply a (very vivid) figment of my imagination.
So, if my "dream brother" (whom I believed to be real at the time) wasn't real, how can I prove that my "real" brother really is real, and not just a figment of my imagination?
I can't.
Sure, the evedence may point very clearly in one direction (that direction being that my brother truely is real), but there's no way I can really be absolutely certain that he is real...
Now, I, too, am a skeptic at heart, but I have come to realize that some things just cannot be proven.
I have come to realize that I have to
choose to believe that my brother actually is there (ie. have faith that he is real), in much the same way I must
choose to have faith that God is real.
So, my question to you, is, do you believe that the world truely is all around you, or do you require conclusive evedence?
(Please, don't come back with a witty remark at how my argument was flawed.
(I, too was a debator, and in our debate team, we consider it quite rude to point out your opponents' mistakes.)
You do not need to answer my question. I am simply trying to show you that you cannot avoid
not having faith in anything.
So, you must choose what you put your faith in.
I choose to put my faith in someone who (I believe) was there at the beginning of the universe, and has given us accounts (yes, through the writings of men...) of how he created it.
Sure, it may seem foolish to go against the evedence presented by scientists, but I would much rather take the chance of being wrong on the Earth, and go to Heaven with God, then to just go with the evedence and go to Hell, seperated from God for eternity.
If He isn't there, and I die, I'm no worse off then I would have been if I didn't believe in Him (ie. I would simply be gone. It wouldn't matter one lick whether I was right or wrong. I would simply be non-existent).
However, if He
is there, I would much rather have been ridiculed on Earth, than to be rejected by God.
That's not a gamble I'm willing to make.)