Religion vs. Reason

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

I am so sick of the saying "something greater" .....it takes a huge dump on what we already have..its just an ignorant saying thats used to try to confuse discussion by those who have no real point.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea i read it when it first came out. good man brave enough to say such things publically these days.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Stunt
First off; novon is correct, not believing in any higher power or supernatural is just as narrow minded as any hardcore religious person. Neither 'side' of the debate has obvious evidence supporting a lack of, or existance of a 'god'.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim that a god exists, not the other way around. Its ignorant to assume something exists without any evidence to back it up.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Stunt
First off; novon is correct, not believing in any higher power or supernatural is just as narrow minded as any hardcore religious person. Neither 'side' of the debate has obvious evidence supporting a lack of, or existance of a 'god'.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim that a god exists, not the other way around. Its ignorant to assume something exists without any evidence to back it up.

Well it makes sense if you assume the author is a young soon-to-be religious conservative who is currently still being held at bay by his rational (albeit diminishing) side.

btw, what a riveting speech! :thumbsup:

 

[Banzai042]

One of the greatest misconceptions is the idea that all religions can be reconciled and brought together. I've seen the idea that since Christianity, judism, and Islam all worship the God of Abraham they can be brought together multiple times in this thread. The greatest problem with this is that while all three do seem to worship the same God, they are radically different and mutually exclusive in how you end up with eternal life with God/in paradise.
AFAIK Judiesm holds the belief that people sin, sin seperates them from God, but through Sacrafice and following God's laws this sin can be forgiven (or at least that's the way it was before the time of Jesus, I don't claim to know what their beliefs are today). Christianity believes that Jesus came to earth and his death removes the need for any other sacrifice, and that all anybody needs to do to recieve eternal life is to ask for the forgiveness that God freely offers that can come only from the sacrifice of Jesus. Not only that, but there is absoloutely no other way to be forgiven and recieve eternal life ("Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6). Islam (again, AFAIK, this is only what i've gotten from what i've read/heard from various sources) has the primary pillars of faith (5 IIRC, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong), and if you faithfully follow those pillars and the other laws of Allah you will recieve life in paradise as a reward.
SO here you have 3 different ideas about how you recieve eternal life from the same God. While I can't say what Judiesm and Islam have to say about the exclusivity of their respective versions of how you get to heaven, i do know that the bible repeadetly states that the one single way to heaven is to recieve the forgiveness that God freely offers, and that forgiveness can come only from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
If we function under the assumption that one of these three is correct (even if only for the sake of this argument) then it's obvious that the other two are wrong, meaning that bringing the three together really means that every member of the two wrong faiths converts to the one true belief. Alternativly we could assume that all three are in their various ways correct. This however, this would mean that in all three cases there have been enormous misinterpretations/mistranslations of the bible/torah/quaran to get to the point where the bible repeately says that Jesus is the only way to heaven, while the quaran says that Jesus was simply another prophet of Allah, and not the savior. Given that case one is unrealistic at best (since the root of all disagreement between the three different religions is the question of who is right), and that option two is realistically impossible I doubt that we'll be seeing a unification of these three faiths at any point in time.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

Actually the light came on for me when I realized there aren't any questions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Let's talk again when you convince a billion people.

If experience is required to know something there is no experience to be had from my words. I can point to the possibility you don't know something that can be known, but I can never make you know it. And the more you don't want to know it the more you won't. Expressions like, you can lead a horse to water........exist because of human experience.

In my opinion most people that describe themselves as atheist or agnostic were at one point in time a member of some faith. Many of these people were/are hungry for knowledge and abandoned their faith after probably many years of frustration and disappointment in never experiencing this truth we speak of. Are you going to honestly tell these people they just didn't want to know the truth? Are they just the unlucky bastards that God decided to leave in the dark while he blesses so many with his taste, some of which appear to me at least to be somewhat undeserving of such blessing?

I am one of those unlucky bastards. I could not believe in the God out there that is in the books. I died trying to find a way to prove that He exists and failed. I put everything I had into finding meaning. I came to the conclusion that life is just one colossal accident and completely without any meaning at all. Like my Undead Mage I was Forsaken. It broke my heart and cast me into the deep despair. I abandoned all hope and knew that I would never be happy. Thanks to some readings on Zen I discovered people who thought in some ways similar to me but who weren't not only not miserable but seemingly totally happy. That assault on my unconscious assumptions that meaning was a requirement for, well meaning, formed the basis, I think, for a transformative insight that occurred to me in a flash as I was in deep contemplation as to what was the root of my suffering.

A blast of wind hit the side of my house and I went from a deep state of thought to being. Good grief, my heart was alive, is alive, will always be alive without meaning. I was born a chimpanzee and chimpanzees are full of joy. When the Zen Master wants your pumpkin he's poking his knuckles in your ribs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
One of the greatest misconceptions is the idea that all religions can be reconciled and brought together. I've seen the idea that since Christianity, judism, and Islam all worship the God of Abraham they can be brought together multiple times in this thread. The greatest problem with this is that while all three do seem to worship the same God, they are radically different and mutually exclusive in how you end up with eternal life with God/in paradise.
AFAIK Judiesm holds the belief that people sin, sin seperates them from God, but through Sacrafice and following God's laws this sin can be forgiven (or at least that's the way it was before the time of Jesus, I don't claim to know what their beliefs are today). Christianity believes that Jesus came to earth and his death removes the need for any other sacrifice, and that all anybody needs to do to recieve eternal life is to ask for the forgiveness that God freely offers that can come only from the sacrifice of Jesus. Not only that, but there is absoloutely no other way to be forgiven and recieve eternal life ("Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6). Islam (again, AFAIK, this is only what i've gotten from what i've read/heard from various sources) has the primary pillars of faith (5 IIRC, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong), and if you faithfully follow those pillars and the other laws of Allah you will recieve life in paradise as a reward.
SO here you have 3 different ideas about how you recieve eternal life from the same God. While I can't say what Judiesm and Islam have to say about the exclusivity of their respective versions of how you get to heaven, i do know that the bible repeadetly states that the one single way to heaven is to recieve the forgiveness that God freely offers, and that forgiveness can come only from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
If we function under the assumption that one of these three is correct (even if only for the sake of this argument) then it's obvious that the other two are wrong, meaning that bringing the three together really means that every member of the two wrong faiths converts to the one true belief. Alternativly we could assume that all three are in their various ways correct. This however, this would mean that in all three cases there have been enormous misinterpretations/mistranslations of the bible/torah/quaran to get to the point where the bible repeately says that Jesus is the only way to heaven, while the quaran says that Jesus was simply another prophet of Allah, and not the savior. Given that case one is unrealistic at best (since the root of all disagreement between the three different religions is the question of who is right), and that option two is realistically impossible I doubt that we'll be seeing a unification of these three faiths at any point in time.

Well it is my understanding that Islam says the other two are OK religions so that's something of a beginning if so.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

I am so sick of the saying "something greater" .....it takes a huge dump on what we already have..its just an ignorant saying thats used to try to confuse discussion by those who have no real point.

There was a time when people believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and to tell them the sun was the greater of the two was considered heresy since it took a huge dump on what they already had.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

Your answer reminded me of this funny but sadly true video

Jesus he knows me (and He knows I'm right)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

Your answer reminded me of this funny but sadly true video

Jesus he knows me (and He knows I'm right)

Hehe, that was great.

 

[Aquila76]

I think this bumper sticker I saw yesterday sums up my religious beliefs:

God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts.

Whether or not you believe in a God, the basic ideas behind the Koran, Bible, Talmud, etc. are basically 'get along with each other' and 'love God'. It's man's way of taking things to absolute extremes that ruin it for everyone.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
You assume I assume God isn't real. The only assumption I make is that its possible God is or isn't real. More accurately you could say I assume that what most people consider their own personal proof of God may not be real. In doing so I have not ignored the contrary position at all, I just consider it much less likely given the things we know about the human mind. We could be discussing that, which I think is pretty interesting, but instead you seem to be too personally offended and went into defensive mode assuming I'm trying to declare you and everyone that disagrees with me a fool.

So you assume that your experience is right and all other experiencers are wrong. You try to pretty it up with words like 'may' and 'consider', but this is the thrust of your statements. Just beating around the bush to allow yourself to skirt making any definitive statements at all, trying to wax intellectual superiority without actually saying anything intellectual.

You interpreted a power outage from a storm as the work of God so we could see mans good nature. And you declared that the only other primary interpretation for such a mysterious phenomenon is that God does not exist since he did not prevent the resulting suffering. The fact you saw these two as the primary interpretations was all I was pointing out. Sure it may not be a day-to-day event but its not like it was a freak occurrence. Once again I was not trying to call you a fool no matter how conviced you are that your under attack. I have given much attention and thought to everything you said, and judging by the false statements you have put in my mouth I would say you may be the one neglecting much of what I say in your zeal to declare me wrong.

No, this is not what I said. I said that, in the context of this discussion, there were two possible relevant interpretations of this event. It's an illustration, like a picture in a book. If I look at a rainbow, I can interpret it in infinitely many ways. However, if I look at it in the context of a child's picture book, it has two primary purposes: teaching the kid what a rainbow is or teaching the kid the colors in the rainbow. You've simply ignored the context of the discussion in an effort to discredit me.

Thanks to the progress of science we can explain how many processes in nature work. But you can always keep asking why until you run into a dead end and just have to say "We don't know yet, thats just the way it is for now and maybe forever." That doesn't mean you give up seeking, but you don't go create a supernatural why that you have absolutely no way of testing or prooving. Again you make more assumptions that I don't care why and can't comprehend the how :roll:.

I'm not sure why you insist on confusing science and philosophical domains. Philosophical exercises are beyond the scope of science, just as science is beyond the scope of philosophy. Science can never tell us why, just as philosophy can never tell us how. I am a scientist who recognizes that the things science tells us probably not the most important things to know.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually the light came on for me when I realized there aren't any questions.

But you were asking a question. It seems to me that your discovery came when you realized there was no answer.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
You assume I assume God isn't real. The only assumption I make is that its possible God is or isn't real. More accurately you could say I assume that what most people consider their own personal proof of God may not be real. In doing so I have not ignored the contrary position at all, I just consider it much less likely given the things we know about the human mind. We could be discussing that, which I think is pretty interesting, but instead you seem to be too personally offended and went into defensive mode assuming I'm trying to declare you and everyone that disagrees with me a fool.

So you assume that your experience is right and all other experiencers are wrong. You try to pretty it up with words like 'may' and 'consider', but this is the thrust of your statements. Just beating around the bush to allow yourself to skirt making any definitive statements at all, trying to wax intellectual superiority without actually saying anything intellectual.

What experience? I said I've never had one and that those who have suppossedly had one would just as likely identify it as something else if someone hadn't told them what it was. All that I assume is there for you to read, maybe you should go over it again. I try not to make definitive statements on such topics that I believe no definitive answers exist, whats so wrong about that? I must admit I got a kick out of seeing you of all people accuse someone of trying to 'wax intellectual superiority without saying anything intellectual' :laugh:.

You interpreted a power outage from a storm as the work of God so we could see mans good nature. And you declared that the only other primary interpretation for such a mysterious phenomenon is that God does not exist since he did not prevent the resulting suffering. The fact you saw these two as the primary interpretations was all I was pointing out. Sure it may not be a day-to-day event but its not like it was a freak occurrence. Once again I was not trying to call you a fool no matter how conviced you are that your under attack. I have given much attention and thought to everything you said, and judging by the false statements you have put in my mouth I would say you may be the one neglecting much of what I say in your zeal to declare me wrong.

No, this is not what I said. I said that, in the context of this discussion, there were two possible relevant interpretations of this event. It's an illustration, like a picture in a book. If I look at a rainbow, I can interpret it in infinitely many ways. However, if I look at it in the context of a child's picture book, it has two primary purposes: teaching the kid what a rainbow is or teaching the kid the colors in the rainbow. You've simply ignored the context of the discussion in an effort to discredit me.

I understood you we're addressing the context of this disscusssion and it does not change anything. You still left out a glaringly obvious interpretation that was just as relevant to the context of the discussion, meaning my point still stands.

Thanks to the progress of science we can explain how many processes in nature work. But you can always keep asking why until you run into a dead end and just have to say "We don't know yet, thats just the way it is for now and maybe forever." That doesn't mean you give up seeking, but you don't go create a supernatural why that you have absolutely no way of testing or prooving. Again you make more assumptions that I don't care why and can't comprehend the how :roll:.

I'm not sure why you insist on confusing science and philosophical domains. Philosophical exercises are beyond the scope of science, just as science is beyond the scope of philosophy. Science can never tell us why, just as philosophy can never tell us how. I am a scientist who recognizes that the things science tells us probably not the most important things to know.

There is no confusion on my end. At one time nearly all branches of modern sciece belonged to the realm of philosophy. Only after we figured out how to make factual observations that could be measured and tested did the modern branches of science break away from philosophy. I think its foolish to believe we have discovered all those facts and that which we can't measure or test in the realm of science will forever belong in the realm of philosophy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually the light came on for me when I realized there aren't any questions.

But you were asking a question. It seems to me that your discovery came when you realized there was no answer.

My quest was for meaning in a meaningless world. I wanted to find meaning. My happiness was completely destroyed because I had crushed every philosophical and religious answer that was supposed to provide me with meaning. I felt that all of them were false, rationalizations and lies of this or that type. My question, with the help of Zen became why do I need meaning in a meaningless world. My realization was that everything is meaningless in a meaningless world including the need for meaning. There is no such need and there is no such question. It is not that there is no answer, it is that the question was a product of illusion. All my longing for an answer to the suffering in the world, all my sadness for all my misery I see and, the my hopes for some power in the world to heal all the world's sickness flew out the window. The universe is not cold benign and dead. All the love I was seeking has always been in my own heart. The love of God is there in your own love. The door to God is through the heart and the heart needs no reason to be. It was is and will always be. God is my true nature. He is when I am.

In a split second I went from deep misery to peace and that tasted like something.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People today are so caught up in their two dimensional world that they lose sight that there may be something greater or different especially if they feel their right or best answers might come into question, and as such become easily offended and are quick to condemn and in some cases seek to kill those that they feel have offended them.

He who has the right answer and knows that it's right does not fear the question.

Your answer reminded me of this funny but sadly true video

Jesus he knows me (and He knows I'm right)

This guys a little more funny cause he's a lot more real Dr. Scott.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually the light came on for me when I realized there aren't any questions.

But you were asking a question. It seems to me that your discovery came when you realized there was no answer.

I took it from his earlier post that he meant he realized there was no meaning to life beyond just living/the experience, hence there are no questions like why are we here, or whats our purpose, etc. Then again I might have missed his point entirely, you never know with moonie.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
There is no confusion on my end. At one time nearly all branches of modern sciece belonged to the realm of philosophy. Only after we figured out how to make factual observations that could be measured and tested did the modern branches of science break away from philosophy. I think its foolish to believe we have discovered all those facts and that which we can't measure or test in the realm of science will forever belong in the realm of philosophy.

Have you ever taken a course in philosophy? How about science? Doesn't sound like it to me. I have 197 college credit hours under my belt, almost all of which fall into these two fields (yes, I was the lonely engineer who took philosophy electives as part of my social justice cluster ). Accordingly, I feel confident in saying that things that are found in the realm of philosophy will stay there. Things that Socrates pondered have still not been addressed by science for the simple reason that science cannot address his questions. Aristotle, who is considered both a great philosopher and perhaps the greatest biologist who ever lived, recognized this early on. He clearly separated his works in these two disciplines. He did find ways in which the two fields could potentially complement each other, but never a way in which they conflicted. This is because I can ask 'how' and 'why' about the same event and the two answers are independent. How was the storm caused? Science can answer this, while philosophy is uttelry useless. Why was the storm caused? Science can never answer this, though philosophy might offer some insight. Note that even if the answer to the 'why' question is that there is no reason, this is still not apparent from scientific observation.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
There is no confusion on my end. At one time nearly all branches of modern sciece belonged to the realm of philosophy. Only after we figured out how to make factual observations that could be measured and tested did the modern branches of science break away from philosophy. I think its foolish to believe we have discovered all those facts and that which we can't measure or test in the realm of science will forever belong in the realm of philosophy.

Have you ever taken a course in philosophy? How about science? Doesn't sound like it to me. I have 197 college credit hours under my belt, almost all of which fall into these two fields (yes, I was the lonely engineer who took philosophy electives as part of my social justice cluster ). Accordingly, I feel confident in saying that things that are found in the realm of philosophy will stay there. Things that Socrates pondered have still not been addressed by science for the simple reason that science cannot address his questions. Aristotle, who is considered both a great philosopher and perhaps the greatest biologist who ever lived, recognized this early on. He clearly separated his works in these two disciplines. He did find ways in which the two fields could potentially complement each other, but never a way in which they conflicted. This is because I can ask 'how' and 'why' about the same event and the two answers are independent. How was the storm caused? Science can answer this, while philosophy is uttelry useless. Why was the storm caused? Science can never answer this, though philosophy might offer some insight. Note that even if the answer to the 'why' question is that there is no reason, this is still not apparent from scientific observation.

Perhaps you'd like to create a new thread on this subject where you can do some more waxing :laugh:.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Perhaps you'd like to create a new thread on this subject where you can do some more waxing :laugh:.

Yes, obviously this discussion doesn't belong in a thread called 'Religion vs. Reason'. Or you realize that I'm right but can't admit it.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Modular

When we speak of being reasonable, then we must take into consideration both creationism and science.

Teaching evolution as fact in school is a joke. We are also taught Thermodynamics which states that everything is depreciating, breaking down and dying over time. Apparently evolution doesn't follow that law...things get better over time, and develop into stronger beings than they were at the start.

Hmmm, how's that work? Sounds like science is contradicting itself! Everyone, quick, let's find some other "absolute" to believe in!

Everyone here should read The Genesis Flood. It's a compelling case for the understanding of Creationism through science.

It would benefit many of the responders here to look at both sides.

Hehe, you would best read some science textbooks to see why you have completely missed the mark.

Wow...you have completely rebutted my viewpoint and made me think otehrwise about what I wrote!

Don't be lazy. Read the book, and think.
Both sides hold validity, but the truth of the matter is that there are scientific reasons which make evolution hard to believe as well. The eye, for example, was in Darwin's view, far too complex for evolution and a stumbling block for his reasearch. But they don't teach that part of it in school either.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Modular

When we speak of being reasonable, then we must take into consideration both creationism and science.

Teaching evolution as fact in school is a joke. We are also taught Thermodynamics which states that everything is depreciating, breaking down and dying over time. Apparently evolution doesn't follow that law...things get better over time, and develop into stronger beings than they were at the start.

Hmmm, how's that work? Sounds like science is contradicting itself! Everyone, quick, let's find some other "absolute" to believe in!

Everyone here should read The Genesis Flood. It's a compelling case for the understanding of Creationism through science.

It would benefit many of the responders here to look at both sides.

Hehe, you would best read some science textbooks to see why you have completely missed the mark.

Wow...you have completely rebutted my viewpoint and made me think otehrwise about what I wrote!

Don't be lazy. Read the book, and think.
Both sides hold validity, but the truth of the matter is that there are scientific reasons which make evolution hard to believe as well. The eye, for example, was in Darwin's view, far too complex for evolution and a stumbling block for his reasearch. But they don't teach that part of it in school either.

Nothing can make you think otherwise about what you wrote because you are committed to it emotionally. You need to think as you do. You are, in other words, biased and not open minded. The creationism glarp has all been throughly debunked by science. It's only appeal is among Christian Fundamentalists who cling to a narrow minded need to have every word in the Bible mean what it would mean to a simple minded person reading it literally. You are short of faith in God so you need textual reassurance. You are also probably controlled by fear and if you were to loose that fear you fear you would run amok.

Trust in God. He doesn't need the Bible to be His exact and final word. He wants you to also read the book of life and the history of the earth and learn. He expects you to grow up past the people whose knowledge is now 2000 years old.

 

[Modular]

Not true. I believe that the earth was created with age. Perhaps God used evolution to make the earth have age. In other words, evolution is the natural order of things, but it was set into motion by God.

I'm not sure how you, Moonbeam, believe that you can justify a statement like that about me from what I have written. Perhaps you should read more clearly what I say.. I stress that both sides should be given proper merit. Most evolutionists don't know anything about creationism other than that it is a "fanatical Christian cop-out for how the world was created". Therefore, they are losing out on the reality of it.

The same goes for many Christians. They are taught that the evolutionist thought undermines God, when I don't believe that it does.

The bottom line is that both sides take a hard-line, non compromising view of each other. Nothing good ever comes from this.

I happen to be willing to look at both sides, Sandorski was not as was proven by his lack of a tangible, well thought out response.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Modular
Not true. I believe that the earth was created with age. Perhaps God used evolution to make the earth have age. In other words, evolution is the natural order of things, but it was set into motion by God.

I'm not sure how you, Moonbeam, believe that you can justify a statement like that about me from what I have written. Perhaps you should read more clearly what I say.. I stress that both sides should be given proper merit. Most evolutionists don't know anything about creationism other than that it is a "fanatical Christian cop-out for how the world was created". Therefore, they are losing out on the reality of it.

The same goes for many Christians. They are taught that the evolutionist thought undermines God, when I don't believe that it does.

The bottom line is that both sides take a hard-line, non compromising view of each other. Nothing good ever comes from this.

I happen to be willing to look at both sides, Sandorski was not as was proven by his lack of a tangible, well thought out response.

I see no virtue in looking at both sides if you have no capacity to see. Creationism has been looked at over and over by scientists and found to be totally empty. In a court of law and a trial we don't convict people on evidence somebody says he heard from a tree. Things that are shown over and over again to be preposterous aren't continued to be given the light of day. Why not take up the case that the earth is flat. You want to be open minded, right? How about all life on earth was designed by aliens or pink moles.