I find it interesting you can't offer any of that alleged evidence, other than the ravings of a mythical Mexican (why Mexican?) woman who claims to see God (sic - I think you mean Jesus) in a burrito.
I didn't think it was necessary since it's all around you and you can't escape it even walking down the street. The bible is evidence. The thousands of churches/mosques/synagogues are evidence. The millions of people who claim to have witnessed and experienced God in some form is evidence. It's all circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless. It's not semen scraped out of the inside of a condom and DNA-matched to a hair follicle, but it is a near-sighted hooker who insists she saw the guy climbing down the fire-escape.
The flaw is that you only accept as evidence the types of evidence that your own preferred answer proscribes. Science must have scientific evidence. I don't know how you can be more biased.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim. I am saying, "We don't know how it all started; let's keep investigating the matter."
You're not saying that, because if you were, you would hold some form of God as an equal, as opposed to lesser, possibility. What you are saying is: let's keep investigating in the direction of my preferred suspicion, and discard all evidence that does not meet our own evidentiary standards for quality.
This is exactly what the God-people do as well, except they use different language and have different evidentiary standards.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: DNA, God and SCK
Date: 2007-02-26 05:41 pm (UTC)I didn't think it was necessary since it's all around you and you can't escape it even walking down the street. The bible is evidence. The thousands of churches/mosques/synagogues are evidence. The millions of people who claim to have witnessed and experienced God in some form is evidence. It's all circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless. It's not semen scraped out of the inside of a condom and DNA-matched to a hair follicle, but it is a near-sighted hooker who insists she saw the guy climbing down the fire-escape.
The flaw is that you only accept as evidence the types of evidence that your own preferred answer proscribes. Science must have scientific evidence. I don't know how you can be more biased.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim. I am saying, "We don't know how it all started; let's keep investigating the matter."
You're not saying that, because if you were, you would hold some form of God as an equal, as opposed to lesser, possibility. What you are saying is: let's keep investigating in the direction of my preferred suspicion, and discard all evidence that does not meet our own evidentiary standards for quality.
This is exactly what the God-people do as well, except they use different language and have different evidentiary standards.