User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100705190745

To Destroyanator - There is not that big of a variation in the human species, a tenth of one percent, as I said. Color of skin is only a very small part of one gene, for instance. Likewise with a myriad of other "variations." A chihuahua is VERY different from a Great Dane - but diverged from the original wolf far more recent than the different people groups that form humanity (and that by DIRECTED, not natural, selection). Given the vast amount of information in the DNA, and the relatively small actual difference on the cellular level in humans, I'd say that PLENTY of time has passed for all the differences in the human race.

To HAD: Uninformed opinion is worthless. But evidence by itself cannot create a conclusion. Observational science (=knowledge) is useful in that it is repeatable -- facts are facts. Forensic science (trying to reconstruct the past) is not enough, for example, to convict a person in a court of law. It produces "circumstantial" evidence that can be used to confirm an eye witness. Often, of course, the accused confesses when such evidence is produced. But it is, in the long run, just an opinion of the investigator. The jury, or judge, then "gives an opinion."

The reason different people see evidence difference is basically "point of view" - that is, prejudice towards the "facts" based on preconceptions. An atheist, by definition, must dismiss any evidence that points to God. A theist, hopefully, will not dismiss God altogether. If however, one assumes that God exists, the evidence can be viewed more "objectively." But even then, the preconception colors the discussion.