Quote from: guybrushthreepwood on February 18, 2014, 06:35:51 PM

Quote from: BitChick on February 17, 2014, 10:16:09 PM

Quote from: guybrushthreepwood on February 17, 2014, 10:03:15 PM

Quote from: BitChick on February 17, 2014, 09:14:17 PM

I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level. Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices. It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree. However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be.

Agnosticism is not really that. Simply put it is someone who doesn't know, or believes they cannot know wether there is a god or not. I don't see how somebody can believe they were created by a intelligent being, but not be sure wether there is an intelligent being or not.

Perhaps because he has no way of proving God one way or another? One of David Berlinski's quotes that is circulating is:

Quote

I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

But he believes he was intelligently designed, so how can he be agnostic?

And you can't really disprove that something doesn't exist. Can the scientific community disprove a baboon god that I have just made up doesn't exist? No. God (and my baboon god along with all the other ones we made up) do a pretty good job of proving they don't exist all by themselves by not existing.

Perhaps he is misusing the word "agnostic" or the meaning of "agnostic" has just evolved over time. Wink

Regardless, I like the guy. I think he brings up many valid points. This topic has not been "laid to rest" as many who hold to the evolutionary theory as if it was the one thing that held more truth than absolutely everything else in the universe.

I had a debate on Facebook with a friend of mine this week about this. He said he was "unimpressed" with Dr. Berlinski's video and then proceeded to send me links of transitional fossils and even (in order to put the nails in the coffin) sent me several links to show how there are fossils of fish becoming amphibians. So I responded that if the fossils showing fish becoming amphibians was indeed some true scientific observational evidence of evolution then YES! There is some small piece of proof to base a theory on. However, is that all I get? Just a few fossils of fish becoming amphibians? Can't I at least get a transitional fossil of a fish becoming a bird? Is this too much to ask if I am going to base my entire belief system on this and throw out the potential that there was an Intelligent Designer that had a hand in how beautifully organized and complex our universe is and works together? Of course he just threw the millions and billions of years that it took. However, even with billions of years is there enough time to allow for each small change to happen to get where we are now? It is mathematically impossible. Plus there just is no observational record of these changes. Otherwise it is just "faith" in evolution. We have a choice then, faith in evolution or faith in an intelligent designer. It really is that simple.