Today is an exciting day for mankind… I’m finally doing my first-ever AMA (that’s “ask me anything” for the reddit-deprived among you). Here are the questions I was asked and the answers I came up with. Prepare to be blown away by how awesome my insight is. Or not. Decide for yourself. That’s what atheism is about I guess.
|From your “About” page. How is his argument any different that the argument for Big Bang evolution?||“His argument” in this case, for those of you who aren’t looking at my About page while reading this, is an argument concerning the burden of proof. To put it on a bumper sticker, the analogy says “you can’t prove something on the basis that I can’t disprove it.” In the off chance that you actually wanted an answer to this question, “Big Bang evolution” (whatever the hell that is) is based on observation, whereas the hypothetical teapot is based on imagination.|
|It cannot be replicated, no experiments have been created to demonstrate that such evolution exists.||Lol, false and false. Countless experiments have been conducted on fruit flies; they breed quickly enough that we can test thousands of generations in less than a year. Every time this experiment begins with separating two identical fruit fly populations, it ends with two distinctly different species of fruit flies.|
|Previous “evidence” was later decided to be false more than once (early “human” skulls that were later determined to be skulls of animals such as pigs that still exist.)||I’d like to see a source on this. Either way, though, a theory is like a jungle gym, and a fact is like a bar. The theory can still support itself if you take away one of the facts that was once used for support.|
|Scientists can’t prove the accuracy of carbon dating beyond a certain time range.||Maybe that’s why carbon dating was never the preferred method. Just a guess. If it were the only method we were using, this would be a valid point. But there are so many different methods, all of which give a consistent description of the age of the fossils.|
|There is no hard evidence (or even overwhelmingly compelling from my educational experience and self research) for evolution to speak of.||Are you sure? Let me Google that for you.|
|How then, is the argument for Big Bang evolution so far off from arguments for Christianity? Some basic assumptions must be accepted on faith in either case because neither can ever be proven completely true by the scientific or religious communities. If I line up evolution against the scientific method, I am left having to accept it temporarily as a mere possibility because it has not been proven wrong.||Similarly, you can’t prove that I currently live in Texas, and you can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist. If you can take it on faith that I moved to Texas when I said I did, can you take it on faith that there are unicorns?
It’s silly to suggest that two theories deserve equal consideration on the grounds that neither one has been disproven. While it’s technically true that both views require an assumption to be made, some assumptions are more rationally justified than others.
That’s it for tonight, folks. Keep the questions coming at my AMA Page or in the comments.