Creation scientist? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Bigbikeman, you got to it before me.

But yeah, you're right, adaptation in the biological sense is really the same thing as evolution.

Gorgonheap is wrong, and is using an argument that's based too much around 'wordplay.' It is similar to the 'evolution is only a theory' argument.

As bigbikeman pointed out, the viruses' 'tactics' are basically determined by their biological composition, which, in turn, is determined by successive mutations over generations, AKA evolution.

It really is harder than it looks. I've tried using swords before, and it's hard to make even a single cut. To visualize how hard it is, you can compare it to whacking something with a baseball bat. But the key difference is, the sword only cuts through something when you hit it with the sharp part of the sword at the correct angle (in line with your swing), which is harder said than done. So, imagine drawing a thin line down the center of the baseball bat, and a thin line down the opposite side. Then, it will only actually 'cut' stuff when the two lines are in line with the arc of your swing. This also means that you can't twist your arms at all in the middle of swinging as well. So yeah, it really is harder than it looks.

Huh? There's plenty proof of evolution. If you want an example of a 'good' mutation, just look at the flu virus. Why do you think we need vaccinations each year? It's because the virus evolves to defeat our immune system.

Also, your statement about it being just a theory is actually very ignorant. Don't forget, in scientific terms, theories are *very* powerful. The theory of evolution is as valid as any other scientifically accepted theory like the theory of relativity, or the cell theory. So, to say that there is nothing to support it further than a theory is ironic, because theories require a lot of support to be a theory in the first place.

Anyways, obvious proof of evolution would be fossil records, but if they don't satisfy you for some reason, there are a few documented cases of modern speciation. Although, they're a bit hard to find, but that makes sense, because speciation takes a long time.

Ok, I hate double posting, but after re-reading nedtheundead's post, I can't not respond.

@nedtheundead:

1. Please space out posts, I almost died reading that.

2. I'm not sure you understand the atheist world view. To put it simply, there isn't one, because you can't really coordinate the lack of something. Thus, atheists must construct moral values on their own. One simply has to hope that killing someone with an axe is not found by others to be morally right.

3. Perhaps you've never taken a psychology course. The human mind is regularly and carefully studied by scientists throughout the world. These are not 'assumptions', but rather they are scientific discoveries.

4. You find it incredible that Dawkins cannot understand that atheism is unprovable. I find it incredible that you would jump to this conclusion, without considering that you may simply not understand why it may be provable. Think about it this way: Even if you believe in a God, you must realize that that makes you atheist to every other God (Zeus, FSM, etc.). Simply understand that atheists are atheist about your God for similar reasons that you are atheist about others.

5. You claim that science is not a tool of reason or logic. I simply claim, "WTF!?" If you understand anything about the scientific method, then you will realize that you are very, very wrong. I can not even begin to fathom how you would arrive at the conclusion that science does not employ reason or logic. I cannot fathom, also, how you state that science makes models and predictions about the world, without employing the use of logic and reason! How, exactly, do you think scientific research is conducted? Guesswork?

And finally, your final quotation that absolutely stuns me.

"what each person believes is really real is merely a leap of faith."

So, does this imply that if I tell you a container is filled with pure oxygen gas, rather than verify it, you'd rather 'take a leap of faith'? I have difficulty believing these words from someone who also stated:

"what matters is what is true."

@nedtheundead:

You're using a different definition of faith. There isn't really a right or wrong definition. It's kind of like the scientific 'theory' and general 'theory.' The faith that Condell refers to is the faith "Belief without evidence."

"he cannot prove he is not the only intelligent life form there is but there is good evidence this is not true." - nedtheundead

This quotation from you isn't an example of faith, at least in the sense that Condell is using it in. Once there's good evidence to support it, then it's not really faith, right?

@MINK:
"I could say... show me proof that science will one day explain everything, and i will stop believing in God, who i consider to be evident all around me and deep inside me."

Almost. But science doesn't have to prove *everything*; no one is claiming that it does. It just has to prove the specifics to your statement. Also, your statement has a somewhat logical flaw with the wording that you used. To parallel, I could say:

"Show me that science can disprove elves, and then I'll stop believing in them, whom I consider to be evident all around me and deep inside me."

Clearly this is absurd. It's logically impossible to absolutely disprove something, cause it might exist somewhere, or be invisible, etc. A better wording for your claim, to make it logically sound, would be (And this fits elves and God):

"I believe the existence of [something] to be evident, so I will continue this belief until it is either directly contradicted, or the reasons for my belief are shown to be faulty."

I think this type of belief in anything is safer and more accurate than a belief that requires a (logically impossible) disproof to change into disbelief.

However, to be the safest, it's probably better to precede the 'believing' condition I made with a 'non-believing' condition:

"I won't believe that [something] exists/is true until it is directly proven, and/or the reasons for believing it are true."

Anyways, that's what I think, at least.

@MINK:

I don't think that it's wise to assume that people will always unconditionally agree on the right answer. Not only is this not always the case, but this also implies that something is only right when people do agree on it, which isn't true.

Also, your example is false. People were quite sure that the Earth was round long before the technology existed to sail around the Earth.

I think the reasons that atheists would stand up to religion, are probably as following:

1) Atheists don't see religion as deserving of the amount of power/respect that it currently has. This is because religion is A)Factually incorrect in many areas and B)Based on faith, unchanging to reason. Now, of course I understand that many religious people are not quite as described. However, many religious establishments are as described.

2)Atheists [probably, I know I do] feel that they are indeed almost certainly correct, and very, very close to a 'final answer', at least regarding the existence of God. More importantly, this claim can be backed up by proof and reason, as can be shown in any detailed argument.

I think the reason that callistan thinks that religion deserves to be challenged and criticized, is simply because everything deserves that. Why should religion be able to bypass all scientific scrutiny when science itself cannot? What gives religion that special right?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean, MINK, when you say to hold off on insults. I don't think that it's necessary to feel insulted when someone criticizes your beliefs. For, were they true, they would stand up to a criticism, no matter how strong. Just as I am not offended when someone proclaims that God exists, I expect that people will not be offended when I proclaim that he doesn't.

@ReverendTed:

It seems to me that the main theme in your arguments is something along the lines of, "Religion can lead to a good lifestyle." Now, here, I would actually agree. Used in the best way, religion can lead to a good lifestyle. Unfortunately, the problem is, A)It doesn't always and B)There are more efficient ways to achieve this.

Point A should be obvious. Any misused teachings are pretty bad. Point B is arguably more important, though. What I mean by this, is that these rites and rituals work without God. You have said this yourself. So, if they work without God, why use them with God? Isn't it better to live a life based more in 'truth'?

You say that religion compiles good behaviours for convenience. Yes, it does. The only problem is, is that there are plenty of other non-factual, no-so-good things in there too. Which leads to the question: "How do you pick and choose the good things from the Bible?" The thing is, the answer to this is almost always subjective. So really, you're just customizing your beliefs/morals/rituals from a large pool. But if you look at it this way, you may as well not use the Bible, and pick from an even larger pool, right?

So, I suppose my whole argument here has a sort of "Occam's Razor" feel to it. However, another important point is one that BicycleRepairMan brought up: Who wants to live a lie?

This is why I (And any reasonable person) should value the truth. If we constantly live in delusion, and far from reality, than it's difficult to accomplish much. This is why I think that everyone would be happier if they were free to question and examine everything around them. However, this brings up a disturbing point: Are there people who actually do want to live a lie? Who take comfort in not having to contemplate anything? This, I don't know. But if there are, it makes me wonder if they quite literally can't handle the truth, for they might find it too unstable.

Anyways, /rant for me I guess.

"Please explain how watching this video to develop a worldview is less "intellectually lazy" than studying various scriptures/teachings to develop your own world view."

I honestly don't think that this video could turn anyone into an atheist, nor would immediately change anyone's world view. The best way to develop a world view is to think very, very carefully about it an do lots of research. Also, from what I've seen, the best world views should probably be subject to change. As you gain better and more info about the world, your view of it should change accordingly. If your world view is static regardless of newly gained info, then it's probably not a very good one.

Anyways, it's 'intellectually un-lazy' if you watch this video, and then do some research and critical thinking. So, it'd be 'intellectually un-lazy' if people who listen to preachers did some research and critical thinking.

I also don't understand this claim of atheists worshipping Dawkins' or Condell's words as gospel. Anyone who does that is on the level of someone who takes a preacher's words as gospel. Anyone's claims deserve to researched and criticized.

"I can't see a Higgs boson, but it remains the most plausible explanation."

Here is the difference between this situation, and the belief in a God.

You're right that sometimes people have to 'accept' very complex theories as the best current answers to questions that they can't understand. However, - and this is an important 'however' - if you *did* want to understand more about a Higgs boson, all you'd need to do is phone/email a few people and read some books and reports. Every scientific experiment is repeatable, so you'd be able to verify it for yourself as well.

You can't ask God if he's there, and get a real answer. There is nothing to prove that he's there.

You make the point that non-belief doesn't proof anything. You are certainly right. The real reason for non-belief *is* the lack of proof in the first place. The reason that I and others are atheist is because there's no reason to belief in God without proof, just as there is no reason to believe in fairies without proof.

I thought this video was very well-done, as are most of Condell's videos. I think that he is right in that religion should be ridiculed, but only in the same sense that one would ridicule someone who believes in fairies or leprechauns. Faith in a supernatural being, and faith in general, requires belief without reason or evidence. Not only that, but, as Condell pointed out, religion causes people to act out on these faiths. Thus, this type of behaviour is certainly one that does not deserve any respect.

My statement was unclear; sorry for that. What I meant was that oil, as a fuel, produces more usable energy per unit of volume and money than wind or uranium.

"You either support progress or you're an enemy of mankind." -gorillaman

Well, I'm all for new energy sources, but you did make a false dilemma there. It's possible to be an enemy of mankind *and* support progress. It is also possible to be neither.

Also, it is true that wind and nuclear power are less efficient than fossil fuels. This is simply because you can harness so much energy from a small amount of oil.

However, I would agree that we must progress even at the cost of beauty. This is because beauty is completely subjective. If we do not have enough energy to sustain our population, we'll die, and that is objectively true. Thus, that makes it more important than something as subjective as landscape beauty.

This video was hilarious. Does this mean that insurance companies will now consider knife-point robberies "acts of God?"

Wow, yeah, this was one of the funniest videos I've seen in a while. I am somewhat surprised at how seriously some of you are taking this. I don't take this video very seriously, because the arguments are very poorly constructed, and thus, hilarious.

"religion sets a standard of behavior... " - Wumpus

Although, this quotation is one I must disagree with, at least partially. Religion does set some kind of moral standard. Problem is, it really isn't the best one. Religion gives you a set of rules and punishes disobedience. However, if you use logic instead, and form your own morality based on the environment around you, your morals will become more solid, as every 'rule' will have a reasoning behind it. Self-enforced morals are usually stronger than externally enforced morals, because you would have arrived at the morals through your own reasoning.