... though despite the identical surnames, we actually are not: John Wilson's excellent God Fearing Evangelical. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
This post by Captain Ed is also worth reading: Haggard Exits. The media made Haggard out to seem more important than he apparently was. I had never heard of him at all (though he got a mention in Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion).
There's also this run-in between Dawkins and Haggard:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0
Hi Willis,
ReplyDeleteI wondered that myself. So I looked it up. There was an Evangelical Alliance formed in London as long ago as 1846. So I guess Pynchon's right there - though the turn of phrase referred to still sounds anachronistic to me: people in 1899 with 2006 sensibilities.
Hi Ed,
That's what Dawkins refers to in his book. Watching it, I was surprised that Haggard didn't come off worse than he did. Dawkins seems much more reasonable here than in The God Delusion. For the most part. But he's doing his own share of manipulation, too.
But, Frank, you don't always have to have heard of a person for them to be influential. I bet there are lots of people in Washington who wield great influence who we've never heard of.
ReplyDeleteTrue, if you're talking about you and me. Not true, if you're talking about people paid to know - i.e., the media. And not true, if it's an area you are involved in. Captain Ed's not knowing of this guy is telling, believe me. I suspect Haggard's "influence" was marginal indeed.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Willis' question...the word evangelical...or evangelist is circa 1175.
ReplyDelete"Matthew, Mark, Luke or John," are referred this way because of the meaning from Latin evangelista, and from the Greek evangelistes, which means "preacher of the gospel," literally "bringer of good news," from evangelizesthai "bring good news," from eu- "good" + angellein "announce," from angelos "messenger."
In early Greek Christian texts, the word was used of the four supposed authors of the narrative gospels.
Meaning "itinerant preacher" was another early Church usage, revived in M.E. (1382).
The use of the word Evangelical as a school or branch of Protestantism is from 1747.
Sorry to be so long-winded!
Haggard is "the disgraced former president of the National Evangelical Association, which represents 30 million evangelical Christians."
ReplyDeleteI'd call that politically influential, representing 30 million people.
Not really, Noel, as Ed Morrissey points out. It's an umbrella group and doesn't necessarily have very much contact with its constituent groups.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's understandable that people would want to distance themselves from him. It just seems a lilttle sickening when you hear "Haggart? Haggart who? We don't know him ... honest!"
ReplyDeleteThat should be Haggard, not Haggert, not that it makes much difference. He could be Blaggert or Maggert and still people would deny he was influential.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Ed Morrissey, who is a very honest guy, was trying to distance himself from Haggard. I think he genuinely hadn't heard of him. I sure in hell hadn't. As John Wilson's piece indicates, the homogenized, monolithic, immensely influential Evangelical bloc is a myth.
ReplyDeleteSure, I meet and interview influential people all the time, then completely forget about them, until their whole world collapses, then I remember I forgot them. Beats going to mass.
ReplyDeletethe homogenized, monolithic, immensely influential Evangelical bloc is a myth.
It probably is now, what with the Democrats running things, though here's something you might find interesting.
Allow me, Noel, to explain something that seems to be lost on an increasing number of people: The U.S. is not a parliamentary democracy. From 1994 until January 2001 President Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress. Eisenhower worked with a Democratic Congress for six of his eight years in office. By historical standards, the losses the Republicans just experienced were actually quite low (see 1936, 1958, 1974, 1986 for comparison). The President is the head of state and the head of government. Aas well as the commander in chief of the armed forces. Congress does not set policy. If bills are passed by a bare majority and vetoed, they will not become law, because the super-majority will not be there to override the veto.
ReplyDeleteAs for interviewing influential people, you are begging the question - the influence is precisely what is in dispute.
On Pynchon: He sometimes deliberately uses anachronisms. While the word "evangelical" was current in 1899, the usage in that specific context is c. 2006.
ReplyDeleteOn Haggard: When I was groaning about the scandal to my wife, she said "But who is Ted Haggard?"
And if evangelical Christians were as powerful a political bloc as people can imagine, the Republicans would probably not have taken the losses that they did.
ReplyDeleteWhere he could, I think it obvious Haggard was influential, with a 30 million roster. I believe his claim that he had a weekly conference call with the President since no one at the time stepped up to deny it. He was ambitious and like many Christians, had plenty of moral passion. I think what he was caught doing reflects on him, not on other Christians, the Republicans, or even the President. The private life of an advisor, if that's what he was, is the advisor's business, until it gets splashed everywhere. Then it seems to be everybody's business, except people who wish they never knew him.
It's interesting to read Evangelicals are trying to circumvent the public school system by persuading Christian families to take their children out of public school and educate them according to a Christian curriculum, essentially subverting the teaching of the States, or at the very least trying to bypass it. Of course everyone is free to raise their children how they see fit, but look at what the textbooks on the curriculum tell young children to believe:
"Chemistry textbooks argue that radiometric dating is unreliable and therefore not a concern for those who believe in a 6000-year-old Earth. And geology books claim that the Grand Canyon in Arizona - a gorge carved by the Colorado river, exposing 2 billion years of Earth's history - was formed rapidly during the worldwide Biblical flood, and all the sedimentary strata visible in the canyon walls were deposited then.
Even astronomy is being rethought to address what many creationists consider their most difficult challenge: explaining how starlight from billions of light years away has reached the Earth in only a few thousand years. Books like Taking Back Astronomy by Jason Lisle suggest possible explanations: maybe God created the light already en route; or maybe the Milky Way sits in a large gravitational well where the time-stretching effects of general relativity can explain the anomaly; or - the creationists' favorite - maybe the speed of light was much, much greater in the past."
- from New Scientist, November 11, 2006:
As Ian Slatter, diector of media relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), says:
"If the Southern Baptists got on board and said home-schooling and Christian education is the preferred method of education, that would be transformational. It would easily double or maybe triple the number of home-schoolers overnight."
Or as E. Ray Moore, author of Let My Children Go: Why parents must remove their children from public schools now, put it: "If we could get up to 30 per cent of public-school students into home-schooling and private schools, the system would start to unravel and at some point implode and collapse. The government would be forced to get the states out of the education business altogether. It would go back to the churches and the families. It's a strategy for the renewal of society."
Home-schooling textbooks "have gross scientific inaccuracies in them," says Brian Alters of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, "who studies the changing face of science education in the US. "They would not be allowed in any public school in the US, and yet these are the books primarily featured in home-schooling bookstores.""
What do you think?
Well, Christopher Paolini, was a home-schooled teen when he wrote Eragon, which became a best-selling novel - and apparently a pretty good one. Francis Collins, who supervised the mapping of human genome, was home schooled for several years (of course his parents were Yale grads, I think). The state of public education in the U.S. provides plenty of grounds for home-schooling your children - especially if you'd like them to be educated. But there are clearly risks - not the least of which is the absence of the social dimension that school provides.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with what you say about Haggard - though I suspect the bit about the weekly conference call is exaggerated, as I think the 30 million "influence" is mostly names on a mailing list - and mostly for fund-raising. I do think that Haggard's chacterization of himself as a liar, etc. was admirably honest.
The Republicans lost because they had turned off their base, which didn't come out to vote. Speaking of exaggeration, the media is vastly exaggerating the significance of this election. But then, the media pronounced the American conservative movement dead on arrival in 1964. Good call, that.
Frank, if Haggard had access to a fundraising list of 30 million people, it's fair to say he was influential.
ReplyDeleteI think I see where you stand on Christian home-schooling - you make no reference to the quality of the scientific teaching, only the suggestion for greater social cohesion. Now that's interesting.
The state of public education in the U.S. provides plenty of grounds for home-schooling your children - especially if you'd like them to be educated.
I agree that public education leaves a lot be desired in the States. I took my children out of it and home-schooled them for a time. I wouldn't want my kids to go on to college with PC nonsense between their ears anymore than I'd want them to walk into a science class with creationist beliefs that will embarass them.
Nixon, as you know, despised the left-leaning monolithic mindset found in US universities. he said, "... this blatant substitution of indoctrination for education cheats them of the intellectual foundation they need to prepare them for life in the twenty-first century."
What's the difference between what Nixon describes universities do and what the parents and the churches behind Christian home-schooling want to do? The only difference is that this time it's religion, not political ideology.
What the Christian home-schooling movement wants to do is to take blatant advantage of children's minds.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteOkay, so then, Noel. You're of the opinion that all mystics should have their little ghostly experiences, each from its own underdone bit of potato the night before, and shut up about it.
Why, it'll be new world-wide cultural revolution. Silence the mystics. Socialize their children according to Mao Tse Dawkins.
Some of us are outside the thinking box you are apparently in and arguing from. You are not proving anything to us, or saying anything we have not already considered, and most of us have nothing to prove to you. Our experiences of life are self-evident, and as real as anything you have ever experienced. And we talk about it, until some New and Here People's Army comes and imprisons or shoots us for what we think.
You have mentioned people who have died for a time and then came back. You need no report of white light or tunnels or anything or anyone on some other side, only of the possibility of complete zilching of experience, to take you out of your box. The zilching demonstrates remarkably how much even our most advanced thought processes are less than the dust that needs to be wiped away on my computer monitor here.
But you meditate on nothing else except what's already in the science and evolution box. You argue against everything else as unnecessary.
At times, you seem to want someone, like Frank here, to get you out of the box. And he's done incredibly well. But, maybe you are the only one in this world who may argue against you. If you live long enough, you will be your match.
Yours,
Rus
Where have I suggested anyone should shut up about anything? I'd welcome your evidence for your beliefs. I may not believe it, but I would read it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've also never said religion was "unnecessary." It is a valuable part of our history, reminding us of what we came through, and what we are capable of believing in.
I don't argue with myself anymore. I know my own mind and have thought through my opinions. That's why I come onto forums, to test my ideas and opinions. I don't take it personally when people disagree with me, or when they outwit me. When the mood strikes, I log on and do battle. Some people like World of Warcraft or other online distractions. I think blogging's a healthy release every now and then and beats blowing up the neighborhood.
Of course, this is a distraction and has nothing to do with the point I was making which had to do with the quality of education children of Christian home-schooling parents are receiving.
You said that mystical experiences are for the experiencer only.
ReplyDeleteAnd then you don't take them, as a rigorous thinker such as William James does, or as I indicated with the potato remark, Charles Dickens.
By coming into the forums, you are testing the truth of the Delphic Oracle. It turns out, that you are the wisest person on earth here. You need to come to your own conclusions with the evidence and arguments you accept into your life.
Home schooling can be great for kids. I certainly would not want my kids to have been limited to the Dawkins view of life.
Neither would I, but I also wouldn't want them ignorant of what we really do know in favor of what we want to believe.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, mystical experiences are for the person who experiences them. It's individual to you. Doesn't mean there is a God. And it might be a good idea to check that your mind is not confused, or was confused at the time, and that you are not lying to yourself. It's honest to say, "I'm not really sure, but here's what I think."
That has to be one of the worst corruptions, when someone lies to themself, because it opens them up to committing every other crime that can be imagined, just like ignoring logic runs the risk of meandering you into the arms of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other supernatural force(s) happening to be doing the rounds. And in that I would include most of string theory as it is supposedly understood today.
Okay, I checked. I was not confused, nor lying to myself. This may have been your simplest explanation, and it would have been very convenient to be able to take all mystics and put them into either the liar category or the confused-person category. But, no. That's way too small a box.
ReplyDeleteThis being the case, the experiences are not necessarily just for me, even if someone like you would like to ignore them, even if the reason why is that they add nothing to your life, the way you have it figured.
However, it is not a bad thing to be sharing these experiences with other mystics--or other interested parties, some who are very clear on, yet still not satisfied with your idea of things.
Do you realize the the string theory as it is applied today into speculation today, is only being applied in such a way, because physics as a serious science, has come up against the vastness of what cannot be known. These serious scientists know where the the science ends and where speculation must begin--at this point. They have come up against the edge of the box, and realized it is a small one. But, most scientists knew that anyway.
I've already said I wouldn't ignore your evidence, that I would read it and consider it. Please don't take it personally that there is a possibility I would not believe it. And if you don't mind my saying so, it might be more interesting for mystics not to only talk among themselves, just because there's a risk someone might disagree or not understand.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree there is something that cannot be known. When science comes up against an obstacle it goes to work to solve it. It never says, "That's it folks! Road ends here. We understand everything we're ever going to."
You could have a little more faith in the human mind.
I definitely would not take it personally, no matter what you say you believe.
ReplyDeleteI also said that I am not here to prove anything to you. You are the one who has said there is proof of evolution--and you have obviously by now asserted such a thing without having ever yourself encountered proof.
Also, you totally and once again misunderstood what I said. You made a faulty leap in logic and assumed I said that physics could get no further than it has. Why would I ever think that? I don't. I know no one who does. Also. My position holds true, even if evolution is to be "proven". I just know that there are limitations and always will be. If we could return 1000 years from now, there will still be limitations, and some of the ancient quandaries will still be pondered--but there will be great advancements as well.
In fact, I fear you honestly believe that you are the only one qualified to discuss evolution in scientific terms. Not so.
you totally and once again misunderstood what I said.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
physics as a serious science, has come up against the vastness of what cannot be known.
"Cannot be known."
The point here is that I don't think kids should be taught creationism as a substitution for, or as the equal of, evolution. We could give someone else a chance to speak.
Oh, simple error on your part. You missed the word "vastness" and thus once again mischaracterizing a statement I made.
ReplyDeleteYour word "vastness" is in the excerpt I quoted. That something is big (or small) makes no difference if it "cannot be known."
ReplyDeleteHow about we let someone else have a say? If it's just the two of us in it, we're going to drive other people who might have something interesting to say, away.
No, you cannot again re-insist on a misinterpretation of something I said, and then try to shut me off.
ReplyDeleteThere is a vastness that cannot be known. I never said that scientists were at the limits of what can be known.
The resolution is not that I contradict myself, as you in your very limited and apparently, now, convenient interpretation would seem to think.
Or, do you yourself really believe that we as human beings, through science, are on our way to knowing everything? Is this possible to you?
If not, then you will need to agree that there is a vastness that cannot be known.
Rus, no one is shutting you off, just asking you to give others a chance to speak, think it over, and that's what I'm going to do.
ReplyDeleteYes, and you attempted it after you had made that misinterpretation of what I had written. Go back and look. You even tried to sweep my communication under some rug by saying that it didn't matter whether large or small--when the essence of what I was intending was the vastness.
ReplyDeleteLet me, ask you again. Do you honestly believe that science will bring us to know everything? Is there a vastness that we as human beings will never know?
And how convenient is it for you to now duck out of the thread without answering yet one more question asked of you? But you ask questions of others, who answer you, and attempt to do so on your own grounds.
I will ask you also again, to show your proof of the theory of evolution, or withdraw that statement as well.
I 'ducked' out of the discussion to give you a chance to cool down and also give other people a chance to speak, if they felt like it. It's not fun talking with people who take themselves so seriously and what other people say to them so personally.
ReplyDeleteThere has been no misinterpretation of what you said; what you said doesn't make sense.
No one can say what "cannot be known." Whether it is vast, small or somewhere in between is irrelevant if it "cannot be known." Think about it, Rus. To claim something unknowable, one must first know not only that it exists but have enough knowledge of it to justify the assertion. The assertion and the justification are then in contradiction. At best, your argument is a logical fallacy.
You asked for proof of evolution in our discussion immediately preceding this one and I tried to explain how evolution works and suggest ways of obtaining the evidence for it yourself, conditional of course on you taking a look at the evidence for yourself. In that thread, you clearly demonstrated that you did not understand evolution and are upset with me for pointing it out, demanding towards the end of it that I don't repeat what you yourself said and threatening not to read what I have written as a result, as though burying your head in the sand makes things disappear. Your position seems to be: "I have a 'wicked high IQ', my mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts!"
My position is that I accept those theories in science that come with proof and though I am interested in all theories since it is possible that there may be some truth to them, I do not accept any untested (or untestable) theories-in-progress as truth, no matter how much tradition or hearsay supports them.
Perhaps you can provide what could reliably be called evidence to support your beliefs in a mystical sun or in any supernatural force(s) you claim to believe in.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI clicked "preview" and the above posted. Below is the post checked for typos and such:
ReplyDeleteHi Noel,
Now you are misinterpreting why I may get upset. You are adding this misinterpretation to you previous now obviously ridiculous misinterpretation that you think of me as someone who has never looked into evolution in detail before. This is what is upsetting, not that you don't understand what I am saying, but that you take some ridiculous and convenient argument that if I disagree with you, then it necessarrily means I don't know the important points of the discussion like you do. And you make this assertion repeateedly in the face of its demonstrated untruth.
It defines part of the box you are in.
Also, I don't know of anyone who asked you to let someone else have "a chance". No one asked me. Everyone has a chance here. It was apparently, now, an extended pipelighter for you.
Let's get back to the questions you stall and sidetrack from:
Where is your proof of evolution?
This is the question your assertions stall out from. This is where I entered this discussion, to be sure no one reading was so misled by you, to think that someone had proved evolution, when I knew very well that this was not the case. Everything else was for elaboration and edification on this point.
On the vastness point. Your position is like saying, because one never gets out of the house and does not have the scientific capability to understand that there are houses outside his own, then there is only the house he lives in. Science absolutely speculates into the unknown. And it calls it the unknown.
If I went to visit him, he may then, like you, say that I am asserting a logical fallacy, that he can only believe in his own house. The premise you work under is that science can and is leading to knowing everything. This cannot be proved either.
You have your job cut out for you.
1. Prove there is no vastness, or admit there is.
2. Prove evolutionary theory.**
*By the way, for #1, you are not asked to accept any untested theories. No one is trying to prove anything to you.
**This should be the easier of the two. Mere evidence will not be sufficient for proof.
Yours,
Rus
You must have been watching this thread for three days, lying in wait to pounce on the non-believer! As the Welsh say, it's just a bit of fun!
ReplyDeleteSaying you "looked into evolution in detail before" does not mean you understood it, particularly when you clearly demonstrate that you don't, or didn't, but maybe do now having looked up the meaning of Natural Selection as it relates to evolution. Where is this "demonstrated untruth" in that discussion? I think you were caught and your pride won't let you admit it.
You asked me for proof of evolution and in that thread I gave you ways of personally finding more than enough evidence to prove it to yourself, real and genuine evidence even the Pope himself accepts as proof of evolution.
This is where I entered this discussion, to be sure no one reading was so mislead by you, to think that someone had disprove evolution, when I knew very well that this was not the case.
I don't know what you are talking about. Since "everything else was for elaboration and edification on this point," please elaborate and edify. Or just explain it.
Also, I don't know of anyone who asked you to let someone else have "a chance". No one asked me.
I asked you and I was invited to do it by the tone of what you were saying which to my ears seemed upset.
It is not me who is sidetracking here. You ask me to "Prove there is no vastness, or admit there is," as though I had suggested somewhere that there was no vastness. How will gaining my agreement that there is a vastness support your assertion that it "cannot be known"?
Science absolutely speculates into the unknown. And they call it the unknown.
"Unknown" is not "cannot be known."
The premise you work under is that science can and is leading to knowing everything. This cannot be proved either.
So if one thing can't be proven, it must mean the opposite of it can. Another logical fallacy. I notice that you don't like being reminded of the mistakes you make and seek to either demand they not be told, as you did in our last discussion, or try to distract from them by attempting to direct the conversation away from them.
Mere evidence will not be sufficient for proof.
To make your point, I think you need to add the word 'circumstantial' just before evidence, then it would be interesting because you could try making out that all of the evidence for evolution is circumstantial which is often not considered enough in a court of law, for example, to prove anything.
If evolution suggests there's no circumstantial evidence to support the existence of 'God' which is what you and other people of faith might be afraid of, then there must be another kind of evidence still with the properties of what we can reliably call evidence that you can point to to suggest God in fact does exist. I think the ball is now in your court. You're suggesting there is other evidence to support your belief in a mystical sun or other supernatural forces. Feel free to prove it.
Please know that I'll accept "mere evidence" to support your beliefs.
Rus posted a comment that I responded to above. He then changed that comment to reflect "typos and such." My response now follows the post Rus has changed, but was written in reponse to what he said before he changed it, just in case there's any confusion concerning why I asked him to explain what he meant when he suggested someone had disproven evolution which has been subsequently changed to mean the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair to change a comment after you've posted it, even it's only for "typos and such." If you say something you wish you hadn't, you are free to come in afterwards and correct it (particularly when it is referenced it in the post that follows it), rather than creating the impression that the response under it is addressing the changed comment, when it isn't. It's a response to your orginal comment before you changed it.
Some people would call that cheating.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteYou best watch it, Mr Unfair himself. Frank does have a copy of the original post via e-mail.
There were only typos changed. In fact, you will see that I did not completely proof it, and there are plenty of typos left. The second post went up 5 minutes after the first, 5 minutes of my figuring out that it happened, because I did not get the yellow preview, and then changing three typos on a quick read through.
I remember the missing word "know" was what made me go ahead, plus there was "mislead" as a spelling for "misled" and a couple others along those lines.
Any comment you made would not have been different.
In fact, if you wish, we can ask Frank to repost it, and then you will look foolish in your objection, saying that you had read it and were responding to something different. And that's fine with me.
Ask away. I don't cheat.
Rus
You must have been watching this thread for three days, lying in wait to pounce on the non-believer! As the Welsh say, it's just a bit of fun!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it you who posted after three days?
Saying you "looked into evolution in detail before" does not mean you understood it, particularly when you clearly demonstrate that you don't, or didn't, but maybe do now having looked up the meaning of Natural Selection as it relates to evolution.
The basic issue here is not my understanding of it, but yours. The fact that I have a very good understanding of it is sufficient.
It is you who have the understanding that there is a proof of evolutionary theory. My understanding has won out in this discussion, because it was known to me, and now very well established between us, that there is no proof.
"Unknown" is not "cannot be known."
Now, you seem to be "correcting" me again instead of addressing the issue. The question you have to answer is directly related to your sidestep of the issue:
Is there a great part of that "unknown" that "cannot be known"?
That is your question to answer. My categories are well-used here. You seem to have difficulty with this.
So if one thing can't be proven, it must mean the opposite of it can.
Of course not. That is a fallacy that you have now made up and stated, not me.
Remember: you are the one with the assertion that evolution can be proven. You are under the burden of proof. I have nothing to prove, and so have proven nothing.
To make your point, I think you need to add the word 'circumstantial' just before evidence, . . .
No, I don't. Again, another category problem on your part. I did not mean to say what you have now said. I meant to say what I said.
If evolution suggests there's no circumstantial evidence to support the existence of 'God' which is what you and other people of faith might be afraid of, then there must be another kind of evidence still with the properties of what we can reliably call evidence that you can point to to suggest God in fact does exist.
Afraid? You mean, afraid to lose an argument? Afraid of what?
Any evidence we need is within our lives and self-evident to us. Curiously enough, but not necessarily enough, many of us have similar evidence. You can believe what you want. I'm fine with that.
I have not detailed my life and relation to what you might call "God". In fact, for the most part, I do not maintain such a "God" focus to my spirituality.
I would never enter a discussion to prove what cannot be proven, as you have.
Furthermore, I have stated before, and meant it, that I am not evangelical. I would not go around trying to convince or convert people: you included. So my motivation for being in this thread has been misunderstood by you.
You seem to think this conversation is about me. It is about you and your lack of proof of evolutionary theory.
Now, you have two questions to answer, that you sidestep on each of your posts:
1. Where is your proof of evolution that you claim has been made?
2. Is there a vast part of that unknown that cannot be known?
The second question is a yes-or-no.
Yours,
Rus
Rus, saying you don't cheat doesn't mean you don't cheat, in the same way saying you understand evolution doesn't mean you do, particularly when you've demonstrated in a previous discussion that you don't.
ReplyDeleteI quoted what you said in the post you changed.
You wrote:
This is where I entered this discussion, to be sure no one reading was so mislead by you, to think that someone had disprove evolution, when I knew very well that this was not the case.
You changed it to:
This is where I entered this discussion, to be sure no one reading was so misled by you, to think that someone had proved evolution, when I knew very well that this was not the case.
If you make a mistake, you are free to come in afterwards and correct your mistake. It's understandable that you don't like making mistakes. That you would try to erase ever making them, however, reveals something about you.
Isn't it you who posted after three days?
Yes. Since you immediately responded to my post, it suggests you were sitting by the computer for three days thinking of ways to pounce on the non-believer!
The basic issue here is not my understanding of it, but yours. The fact that I have a very good understanding of it is sufficient.
Again, saying you have "a very good understanding" of evolution is not the same as having one, particularly when you have demonstrated, as you did in our last discussion, that you don't.
My understanding has won out in this discussion, because it was known to me, and now very well established between us, that there is no proof.
You make these very entertaining claims, as though just by stating something establishes it. If only your claims had some basis to them. It has not been "very well established between us" that there is no proof for evolution. As I said to you in our last discussion:
If you choose not to 'believe' in evolution, my position is that evolution is not a matter of faith; it is proven scientific fact. If you ask me again how I know this, or ask me to prove it, I repeat my suggestion to investigate for yourself the publicly available evidence supporting evolution. If you have trouble with some aspect of it - gaps in the fossil record, for example - I'm interested to chat about them, but only after you've thought it through. To put it another way, I am asking you to read the message your God has wrapped in the fabric of your own being.
Is there a great part of that "unknown" that "cannot be known"?
Who knows what "cannot be known"? You've tried to equate "cannot be known" with what is currently unknown, but they are not the same. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, to claim something unknowable (or "cannot be known"), one must first know not only that it exists but have enough knowledge of it to justify the assertion. The assertion and the justification are then in contradiction. At best, your argument is a logical fallacy. Tempting though it may be, I must resist the urge to join you in your logical fallacy and point out instead that no one knows what cannot be known.
Earlier you said:
The premise you work under is that science can and is leading to knowing everything. This cannot be proved either.
You have quoted me saying in response:
So if one thing can't be proven, it must mean the opposite of it can.
You reply:
Of course not. That is a fallacy that you have now made up and stated, not me.
Rus, try to follow this: You say that it cannot be proven that science is leading to knowing everything, but you've just agreed that the opposite of science (which is faith) cannot either. This means that you are agreeing that faith cannot know everything or lead to knowing everything. Thanks for the admission! Note that I have never said that science will come to know everything. It's nice to know that you think faith won't either! (I set you up to make this admission, it's true, but had you been clever, you could have spotted it and thought up a way to avoid it.)
As mentioned elsewhere, I'll take the evidence science can offer over the supernatural claims all religions resort to. When, or if, faith comes up with a smidgen of what could be reliably called evidence, I'll consider the evidence.
Any evidence we need is within our lives and self-evident to us. Curiously enough, but not necessarily enough, many of us have similar evidence.
So you do have "evidence" to support your beliefs in a mystical sun or other supernatural forces? Don't be shy, Rus. Tell us about it. I'm particularly interested to hear about the time you were pronounced clinically dead.