As was brought up to me last week, and as I am sure many viewers of my blog are wondering: 'If Chandler is so sure that religion is false and he is happy with his alternative way of life, then why does he care to express his nonbelief? Why does he care what other people believe??'
Well, most simply, why does anyone ever express their thoughts/opinions/beliefs? Why does
anyone ever publish a book/establish an organization/market anything? People
naturally like to share their ideas, so it should be no surprise that I want to
do the same.
Personally, I have been surrounded by Christianity my
entire life, since it is so prevalent in America. I attended Catholic Church
with my family up until I was a teenager. I dismissed the faith as representing
reality because I found its remarkable claims to be too farfetched. Now, after
my past year of research, ‘farfetched’ has become an understatement. I now have
legitimate reasons for my lack of belief, and I wish to present those reasons
to both believers and nonbelievers.
I want nonbelievers to read what I have to say so that they
may have more detailed responses to the question: “Why do you reject God?” If
atheism is going to continue to spread, there need to be informed advocates or
‘street epistemologists’, as Peter Boghossian would say.
I would like to clarify that I am certainly ‘atheist’ in
terms of an intervening God/organized
religion, but mildly ‘agnostic’ in terms of intelligent design/deism (especially
having just recently learned about Chladni plates! link).
I want believers to read what I have to say so that they
are presented with my alternate way of thinking. Ancient religious doctrines are
apparently open to interpretation, so I am expressing my interpretations when I mention the Bible (basically fundamentalist).
I do not mean to say that devout believers are
irrational (for the most part). Of the Christians I have discussed with, most
of them have coherent reasoning to their faith (though there are some who do take
on ‘blind faith’). Regardless, there are core assumptions that are made around which
believers’ reasoning revolves. I have developed many issues toward many of
these assumptions/aspects of faith. Since it has been the focus of my research,
most of my points focus on Christianity in America, but could possibly relate
to all denominations and some other religions.
Sin.
This concept is absolutely detrimental to society. To
believe that we are born lost in a sinful nature and that it can only be
overcome through faith in Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with a
supernatural God has no beneficial purpose. Obviously, we are imperfect, but that does not
mean that we are hopeless on our own. We have come to realize that ‘everyone
makes mistakes’, and people are most often forgiving. Yes, a life of faith
generally leads one to be more honest, kind, and giving. However, a change of
this kind must have been initiated by one’s own accord. I can guarantee that any
change due to a faith was due to one’s own introspection and willpower.
I do not understand why people are so willing to believe
such a demeaning perspective. I especially do not understand why people teach their
children that they are born innately bad. It sanctions an extraordinary
judgment toward others, and adds instigation to bullying. The perception that we
cannot find it within ourselves to be
honest, kind, and giving is self-pitying. The perception that we depend on an
external source to find strength, love, and/or forgiveness is self-pitying. The
perception that we ‘fail all the time’ is especially self-pitying. It is beyond
humble; it could even be self-abuse, and I am sorry for anyone who believes
that we are in need of a ‘savior’. Humanity has been developing cooperation,
compassion, trust, awareness, understanding, equality, and peace throughout our
ancestry (with plenty of development still to be done). I am looking to
contribute to this development. Believing that we are lost in sin is only
counterproductive and an unnecessary hindrance/discouragement. Please give
humanity some credit.
Blessed.
To say one is ‘blessed’ is to say that a God chooses the
condition of one’s health and the circumstance one is born into (i.e.
predestination). ‘God has a plan for everyone’, yet for many humans, that plan is to die at birth (infant mortality), be
born with a lifelong disease (cerebral palsy, diabetes, etc.), be deaf and/or
blind, be traumatized during childhood (abuse, tragedy, etc.), or to die young
(malnutrition, disease, violence, etc.). To say that one is ‘blessed’ is to say
that one is favored over many others from birth, i.e. some children are favored
to grow up healthy in America, while other children are chosen every minute to
die of malaria in Africa (link).
A much more appropriate and humble term to use would be ‘fortunate’, since our circumstances
are much more likely a matter of chance. I am very fortunate to be who I am, to be raised with a loving
family/community, to be surrounded by a relatively safe and healthy
environment, to be granted the freedom of America, to be provided the opportunity
of education, etc. However, I do not believe that I was chosen by a God to be in
my circumstance over any other. That would be the ultimate egotism.
Prayer.
I understand why people pray for hope and strength for a
friend/relative who is in danger or fighting for their lives, especially dire cases
such as natural disasters or when someone is in a coma. Sometimes praying is
the only thing people can do for consolation.
However, I do not understand why people pray for those
in developing countries who are suffering from hardships such as poverty, disease,
and/or war. One example would be praying for the children in Africa who die of
malaria every minute. One would have to believe that God decides whether or not
to help these children based on whether or not healthy people in America are
praying or not. That implies that, if we do not pray, God sits idly by. That would
be simply cruel.
Malaria is preventable and curable, and it is up to humanity
to administer the treatment. Prayer is not effective until action is done along
with it. It comes down to one’s own willingness to devote a lot of time and
resources to help those children. Those are the true ‘angels’ of our world.
To say that someone was saved by prayer and saved by
grace as an act of God is to say that, without prayer, God sits idly by. Take
the example of comas. Some people survive comas, and some do not. To say that
God decides who is to survive and who is not, depending on the number of people
praying to Him/acknowledging Him/worshiping Him, only characterizes Him as
narcissistic (i.e. He only offers help when His creations worship Him).
There is also the aspect of praying to God in order to
repent/ask for forgiveness. My question is why the middle man? If you do wrong
to another, why would you need to ask forgiveness of a claimed judging Creator?
Instead, I would advise to apologize to the person you have wronged, give back
what may have been taken, communicate, listen, negotiate, and act. If you make a mistake that only
affects yourself, then fix it if you can, learn from it, and forgive yourself. That is much more proactive
than confessing to a personal God who judges you on everything you do, say, and
think.
Supernatural
Duty.
I highly admire the people who often go out of their way
to volunteer/fundraise/help those in need (I cannot say I am one of those
people at this stage in my life). However, whenever someone claims that they
are doing so because they are serving the will of a Lord, my level of
admiration drops. I have more admiration for the humanists who help others for the
sake of helping others (the true ‘angels’ of our world).
Young-Earth
Creationism.
According to a 2012 survey, about 46% of Americans
believe that God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years (link).
A poll done in March shows the same trend, that Americans are not confident
about the Big Bang, age of the universe/Earth, or evolution (link).
To understand why this is an issue, watch this video: link.
Negligence of basic science is inexcusable
in our modern society. If you do not understand evolution, you have the
power at your fingertips to look it up. Here is the human family tree: link. We are
surrounded by the evidence that man has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years (DNA,
fossils, etc.). Science is falsifiable, where scientists participate in
competition, attempting to disprove each other’s theories. No evidence
discredits the ‘theory’ of evolution, so it has been labeled
as a scientific fact. Doubting this fact
simply because it goes against the ancient claims of the Bible discourages
critical thinking, ignores the immense scope of space and time, and discredits
the amazing achievements of our survivalist ancestors. I am glad steps are
being taken to further educate people (current example of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey link
And an important related article: link).
Rapture/Tribulation.
According to a Pew Research survey done in 2010, about
41% of Americans believe Jesus Christ will definitely or probably return by
2050 (link).
As outlined in the New Testament, this Second Coming would include a Rapture
(believers ascending to Heaven), a Tribulation (punishment for nonbelievers),
and a Final Judgment (condemnation of sinners to Hell). It would be the end of
days/End Times, and life on Earth would be no more… Anyone who is willing to believe in such a thing would have to be psychopathic, and feel that doubters
like me being punished in such a way would be fair and just. At least
two-thirds of the global population would be left on Earth to be punished (link).
It also supports the claim that faith is a selfish strive in order to be 'saved'.
Hell.
What if I were to die tomorrow? What would you believe I
would proceed to do? Meet past loved ones in a common spiritual gathering/rendezvous?
Wander the earth as a ghost? Simply cease to exist? Or… Suffer for eternity in
a Hell? I would certainly not be admitted into any Heaven based on religious
doctrine. It is bewildering to me that when I die, there will be many people
holding the idea that I am condemned to a Hell simply for finding my own moral
way of life without accepting Jesus Christ or worshipping Him/The Holy Trinity.
If anyone actually feels that I deserve such a fate, then that is truly, truly
disheartening. As Greg Graffin is quoted in saying: “Our faith should be expressed
in working toward a better planet for our children, and not the selfish,
juvenile hope for a better afterlife for ourselves. I don’t think anyone is
going to Hell because it only exists in the minds of people who wish ill-will
on others.”
I may or may not comment satisfactorily on all the points you raised. But I'll give give it a shot.
ReplyDeleteSin: As far as I can tell, you have issues with believing in sin because a) you feel that it is detrimental to self-esteem, and b) you think that humans have been doing pretty good so far, and you think they have the potential to do even better. You mentioned that you don't understand why people would believe something so demeaning. Well, I would respond to that by saying that if it is true, than believing the opposite is also detrimental. I understand that if there is no such thing as sin, then believing in it has negative impacts. But if there is such a thing as sin, the negative impacts are much greater (such as assuming you are making the right choices when you "follow your heart"). So the issue here is not which perspective is beneficial, but rather which is true. There are are negative impacts either way if you are wrong.
Blessed: Personally, I have issues with how this word is used in Christian circles. But the way I define would probably seem even more strange to you. I would say that God gives everyone the opportunity to be blessed in different ways. But the Christians in America almost always pick the wrong things to call "blessings'. One of my favorite verses on the subject is as follows: Proverbs 30:7-9: Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.
I think in America, people are eager to call "blessing" that which is actually riches and comfort. Based on this verse, the start of the Sermon on the Mount (Mathew 5: 2-12), and others, I would say that being comfortable is not only not a blessing, it is dangerous to spiritual growth and a moral life (see also Mathew 13, especially verse 22).
In summary (of an almost-off-topic comment), I think that true blessing does not have direct corollaries to one's physical situation. Blessing is the product of how one responds to a situation. I have seen very poor people who were very blessed in their situation, because of the increased relationship with God brought on by relying on Him for their needs instead of themselves.
Prayer: I don't have a satisfactory answer for this right now. I have seen prayer answered. I believe God works through prayer, but I don't know what God does if there is no prayer. As far as praying for forgiveness, I think that it is important because when you harm someone, you are harming God's creation. You certainly should do what you can to correct the situation with the person, but you also should work to correct your relationship with God (which you damaged by doing wrong).
Supernatural Duty: I think that the point of doing good things on behalf of God is to show that He cares enough to request them, not that the person is anything special for doing them. When I volunteer for something, I don't do it so people will think of me better, and so it doesn't bother me when they don't.
Young-Earth Creationism: I know a lot about this. I was raised in a family that loved science, and also believed in creationism. This resulted in me learning a lot about creation science. I am not ignorant of the science taught as basic, nor do I not understand evolution. I have simply been exposed to the idea that the evidence against evolution, especially when combined for the lack of crucial evidence for evolution, creates a huge problem with the theory that has yet to be explained. There is in fact much evidence that discredits evolution, but acceptance of the theory is so widespread and argument against it is so looked down on that people aren't made aware of it. Many people who disbelieve evolution do not do so merely because it contradicts the Bible, but rather because they have been exposed to this evidence. I am willing to talk more about this subject, but I would rather not use this medium.
ReplyDeleteRapture/Tribulation: Similar to sin, I don't think people believe this because they like the idea. And I think that the point of faith is not to believe what you want to (which would be selfish), but to believe what you actually are convinced is true.
Hell: I don't think anyone likes the idea of hell. But if your faith is in the human spirit and potential, then I can see why it is a particularly hard concept to swallow. Again, I don't think people don't believe in hell because they want to.
I hope this helps (even though it probably is a drop in the bucket).
I’ll go through the topics the same way.
ReplyDeleteSin: a) Absolutely. b) Yes, I would agree humans have done ‘pretty good’. We have had a very dark history, but civilization has progressed through it all. From what I can tell, the good almost always outweighs the bad. If we are innately bad, how would society function at all, especially when at most 33% of the global population claims to be Christian? Take Scandinavia, for example, one of the most secular regions in the world, and they are one of the most peaceful. I’m glad you agree that if sin is not true, then believing in it has negative impacts. If sin is true, I’m not sure what the negative impact is of ‘following your heart’. Sure, there would be the negative impacts of God’s condemnations, and those are cruel anyway. I am not going to assume sin is true because of such supernatural fear tactics.
What the Bible labels as ‘sin’ is really animal instinct, since we are animals, and the heavy majority of mankind’s history was spent hunter-gathering in the cruel ‘kill or be killed’ game of nature (earliest homo sapiens were around 160,000 years ago). We overcame the Animal Kingdom with our cunning intelligence relatively recently (agriculture developed only about 10,000 years ago). We still carry the genes of aggression. The goal of nature is to reproduce, so we still carry the genes of lust. Our challenge is to resist these primitive urges, and I like to think nearly everyone has the capability to do so. Again, my point is that our decisions to be honest, kind, and forgiving come from within ourselves, and not some external source of a personal God.
Blessings: I made no mention of ‘blessing’ having a materialistic connotation (though yes, that is how it is often used). I simply mean it in the sense of who you are, the state of your health, and what family/environment you are brought up in. It does not have much to do with poverty because that is more within one’s own control.
Prayer: Even the phrase ‘God works through prayer’ implies the same characterization of apathy toward those who do not pray. Under the core assumption that this God exists, then sure, your reasoning makes sense. Without that assumption, then God is an unnecessary middle man.
Supernatural Duty: My point was that I more admire the people who do good things due to their own willingness, rather than serving the will/request of a Lord. There are plenty of nonbelievers who help others out of caring, sympathy, and especially empathy. I more admire organizations such as the American Cancer Society and Habitat for Humanity, who do not display the motivation of serving a God, but simply serving the unfortunate.
Young-Earth Creationism: You would have to show me this scientific evidence (at least a link or two). How would you explain the fossils/skeletons of, say, homo erectus? Christians like to doubt the credibility of determining the age of these fossils. But do they understand the meaning of radioactive decay? Probably not. There must be a reason why creationist evidence is frowned upon.
Rapture/Tribulation: Well, there are those who look forward to/anticipate the Second Coming, which indicates some degree of liking the idea. But it’s not even so much as believers liking the idea, but even willingly accepting it as being fair and just. The fact that there are people who believe that I, and the majority of the world, are deserving of such a fate is frightening.
Hell: Pretty much the same rationale as the Second Coming. I didn’t make any mention in that section of people believing in it because they want to. The fact that they are willing to believe it at all is disheartening.
As usual, thank you for commenting!
Sin: the negative impacts of following your heart would be making choices that aren't in your own or other's best interest because you trust yourself to be right. There are many situations in which I would behave very differently if I felt I could trust my heart. A good example is with crush-style relationships. If I feel that I like someone, and act on that feeling, I have the potential to wound them seriously if something goes wrong. Whereas if I listen to the Holy Spirit I tend to avoid circumstances that are damaging.
ReplyDeleteI am curious, are you saying that the animal instincts that have brought us this far are no longer necessary? You say it is a challenge to resist those urges, but why? Do we now have a better system than kill or be killed?
Blessings: I did not mean to imply that blessings refers only to possessions or resources, but those were the only examples I gave. I do mean to include broader definitions of situation. However, the same principles apply. Having a mental health problem, for instance, is an opportunity to increase one's dependence on God (not being able to rely on one's self as much), and therefore improve one's relationship with God. I hope that is enough explanation to bring the rest of the topic up to date.
Prayer: If you don't believe God exists, then how could He be classified as a middle-man, unnecessary or not? What is He in the middle of? And if you don't believe in God, then it is pretty obvious that you consider Him unnecessary. Also, the phrase "God works through prayer" does not imply at all that He doesn't work in the absence of prayer. He works differently, but He is not apathetic.
Supernatural Duty: I don't really have a say in who you admire. I think your perspective is different, and I fail to see why the motives of humanitarian effort is important to the effort itself.
Young-Earth Creationism: Here is a link to probably the most active organization in creation science: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
There are also many books written on the subject. A serious debate on the subject would take years to research and months to compose. It would also cover almost every aspect of science and study. The best way I can sum it up is: evolution is statistically impossible. There is so much chance involved, and so many assumptions of processes we don't observe in the world, that it could not have happened. Now, in response to the fossil question, I have not heard of any discovery that has had a full enough skeleton to be called a link between apes and humans. There have been human bones, ape bones, and even a solitary pig tooth all called that link, but so far none have panned out. I do no what radioactive decay is, and how it works. The biggest assumption when using radioactive decay is that there are no, and never have been, any processes that chance the rate of decay. But since that very method has sometimes been unreliable in dating items of known age, I am willing to accept reasonable doubt.
Rapture/Tribulation: The acceptance of this idea follows from the belief in the basic premises of sin, sacrifice, redemption, and punishment.
Hell: Pretty much the same as above, except that what you are willing to believe follows from consistency with your overall belief. If you choose to disbelieve something because you aren't willing to believe it, you are in danger of letting your beliefs come as a result of your emotions.
Sin: Okay sure, following your heart does not always serve the best interests of yourself or others. With the example of crushes, obviously there is a risk involved, but not acting with the expectation that it could go wrong is just pessimistic. But I know what you mean because I have gone through plenty of these experiences where I had a crush on a girl and acted on it, only to figure out later that it was not meant to work out. That does not necessarily mean it was a mistake, though, since both people will eventually move on. They have been learning experiences for me, and will be the basis of my decisions in the future, rather than an inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteYes, that it what I meant, that we generally have a better system than ‘be or be killed’. Would you not agree? Do I have to fight you or another tribe or an animal for my survival? Of course not. But that is what nature consists of (outside of our technological lives). However, we do inhumanely slaughter animals in factories for our food, but I don’t know how we could avoid that with our widespread population to feed (unless we all go vegetarian of course, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon).
Blessed: Right, that example just did not apply to the point I had made. Okay, so why doesn’t God give us all mental health problems? You’re actually saying God actively chooses who has health problems so that they would be more dependent on Him? That would be like me creating a dog without one leg, just so that it would be more dependent on me. That’s even further support of Him being narcissistic and why I agree with Seth Andrews when he says “We don’t hold to a God that allows us to be poisoned so that He could provide the antidote.”
Prayer: I can say that I don’t believe God exists, but still view Him as a middle man in the lives of those who do believe in Him. He is in the middle of you and the person you may have wronged (including yourself). God must be at least apathetic toward nonbelievers if He is content with condemning them to eternal separation from Him (and especially if that means Hell).
Supernatural duty: Touche, the motives are not that important if the intent is the same. However, Christian missionaries hold extra duties such as building churches and preaching to those who they believe are lost in sin. That is not practical to those in need of food, water, shelter, vaccines, education, etc. In terms of these fundamental conditions of well-being, building churches is an unnecessary use of time, money, and resources. I know you’ll disagree because you believe you are helping them to discover the love of the Lord and eternal life, but obviously I disagree with that view. There are practical ways to provide joy, hope, and love without patronizing the unfortunate that they are in need of a supernatural savior. They are in need of a stable, healthy, and safe environment in order to find joy, hope, and love.
Young-Earth Creationism: I have gone to answersingenesis a lot during my research because, yes, they are very good at explaining things. As far as the emergence of life, you’re right, we don’t know how exactly that occurs. It is definitely not impossible, even if it is highly implausible. We do know that water, sunlight, and various elemental building blocks are plentiful throughout the universe (Mars used to have rivers and Jupiter’s moon, Europa, has a surface of ice, with possible liquid water beneath. Also, comets are made mostly of ice, as well as the forgotten Pluto). The ingredients for life are not rare. Just because we do not yet understand how nature tends toward life, does not mean we should say ‘God did it’. It is not possible for us to conceive the scope of a billion years, which is plenty of time for evolution to intelligent life to occur.
DeleteJust because we have not found the particular species where ape and man diverged does not mean it did not happen. The undeniable evidence of Homo erectus roaming the earth most recently about 143,000 years ago is enough to conclude that man was not created in present form 6,000 years ago. Do you really believe this evidence is all made up or false? Wikipedia is the most unbiased source: link
You must be aware that radioactive decay has proven to be constant, regardless of extreme temperature, pressure, radiation, etc.? If there were some unknown process that changes the rate of decay, then they would not be constant. These rates have been measured again and again from random samples all over the world, yet they remain constant. Are you implying that God’s work could be involved as such a process? If so, that is nothing but manipulation. You would have to believe that God planted these fossils and adjusted their molecular time clocks to test our faith. Or you might say Satan is behind this, but then God is apparently allowing it. Why would God give us such strong evidence against the claims of Genesis? He’s allowing many people to be led astray then, right?
This is also why so many liberal Christians have opted to take the book of Genesis as figurative/a story/poetry; the evidence of evolution is scientifically undeniable.
Just a question: how literalist are you? You believe that man was created 6,000 years ago, but do you believe the Earth and the universe were also created at that time? I’m curious because it seems that you could believe one, but not the other.
Rapture/Tribulation/Hell: My same reasoning holds. The fact that your beliefs include such things is demoralizing.
Hey Chandler,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for the blog. I've enjoyed reading about where your studies have taken you. It's good reading and talking about these things. Most of these points you've addressed are covered by other Christians (namely accredited authors) who, surprisingly, have a few similar beliefs and ideas. And some of your points get addressed by them with a little more care than the typical "I feel like..." response some believers are famous for:)
In the same way that I wouldn't expect the average "atheist" to give me all the facts regarding creationism vs. evolutionism or why they (as small as we are in comparison to existence) can be certain there is no such thing as deity, I would hope you wouldn't take the words of any Christian as a universal truth. If my hopes were to find more holes in a belief system, as much as you might, I'd read and study the scholars of that belief.
These are books that may give you a clearer understanding and insight regarding basic Christianity.
1. The Reason for God by Timothy Keller
2. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
You may have heard of one or both. If so, I don't mean to be redundant. After reading your blog, I think these would be helpful regarding some of the points you're refuting.
Again, thanks for sharing this!
Zach,
DeleteThanks for sharing. Yes, I’m aware of those authors. I have so many books to read, we’ll see when I get around to those. I think I will plan to read C.S. Lewis as soon as possible (early in the summer). I have heard/read many references to his quotes and given them careful consideration.
Of course these ideas are addressed by academia. However, these ideas are very straightforward and appeal to the core beliefs of Christianity (common beliefs), so there is no reason why the ‘average Christian’ should not be able to justify them. My issues are taken straight from the claims of the Holy Bible. If you have read Timothy Keller and C.S. Lewis, then you should be able to present part of their reasoning to me. Otherwise, you are simply saying you cannot answer these important questions yourself.
I certainly do not take the words of any Chrsitian as universal truth! That is why I am trying to appeal to as wide as an audience as possible. But yes, any particular discussion I have (if you are referring to the comments above) will be directed to that one particular Christian’s reasoning at that particular time.
I have not denied such a thing as a deity; I am atheist in terms of an intervening God/organized religion, but agnostic in terms of deism. You’re right, the average atheist doesn’t have all the facts for and against creationism/biblical claims, but that’s mostly because a lot of them simply don’t care as much as I do to thoroughly refute these claims. However, the average Christian should care much more about his/her system of belief, and should be much more capable in justifying its controversial claims. (I hope that makes sense).
P.S. Please do not use the word ‘evolutionism’ in reference to evolution. The –ism gives it the connotation of it being some sort of belief. Evolution is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of factual evidence. I cannot stress this enough.
As always, I appreciate the input.
There really are too many books out there:) Or maybe just not enough time to read them all.
DeleteI agree with most of your second paragraph. The average Christian should be able to respond to these claims. I don't mean to refer these authors for any other reason other than your own persona; study. I've read these authors. I guess my confusion came from being unsure if this blog was to mean to engage more dialogue/debates or merely to express where you're personally at in life. Maybe I'll put my two cents in here or there:)
From my understanding, "evolutionism" can be an accepted term even among evolutionists. I have a few friends who wouldn't be offended by the term after lengthy discussions regarding the matter. This video (though the speaker is slightly irritating) gives way to that. I'm not posting this video to refute evolution. Just giving way to those who would acknowledge it as a belief (7:40 on). I can make sure to steer clear of that word on this blog though:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjz-33M-bt8
Thanks for the reply! Hope to see ya soon.
Yes, I do mean to engage more discussion in the way that if a reader disagrees, I want he/she to tell me why and to let me know of any misconceptions, so thank you.
DeleteI watched the whole video. Touche, there is a level of 'belief' that goes into evolution. My preferred term is 'trust'. I trust in the scientific method because we see its effectiveness in technology and explaining the way nature behaves, whether it relates to evolution or not.
In regard to observational evidence, of course we cannot directly observe evolution as it took place. But we CAN directly observe the fossil record and genetic code. As one branch of the ‘change of kinds’ are from fish to tetrapods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish#Fish_to_tetrapods from which amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are linked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod I chose to use Wikipedia because it is the most unbiased source. I admittedly did not even recall the actual name ‘tetrapod’, but thanks for giving me the motivation to do so!
According to your profile, you live in Ft. Lauderdale. May I ask how you came across my blog?