|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: No evidence? Or more likely evidence you don't like, therefore you don't classify as evidence, a typical creationist response. And you are obviously dishonestly tying your interpretation of Genesis to what Christanity actually means. Where does Evolution state that God was not responsible at all?
quote: This jumped out at me, signaling a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part. Science studies the natural world, what exists and can be tested. How can science not be materialism? Furthermore, how can evolution be materialism yet not science? Or is that you are completely redefining words to suit your bad arguments in an attempt to avoid just how weak they are? Name me one fact of ID. Furthermore, how can one have blind faith in evolution when various sciences all use it? I know someone who works at ExxonMobile and their methods of finding oil rely on evolution's timeline. Chevron drills specifically in areas where it is believed to have been high concentrations of ancient plankton which was compressed into oil. Care to explain how two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world are using 'blind faith?' Or are you going to simply pretend it doesn't exist, plug your ears and go "i'm not listening?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Where does Evolution state that God was not responsible at all? Materialism does not presuppose Deism, but Atheism. Evolution says intelligence is not seen in reality and that God is not the Creator, that is why all Atheists support. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This jumped out at me, signaling a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part. We already know that Atheists believe that anyone who does not believe what they believe to not have science understanding, what is your point?
Science studies the natural world, what exists and can be tested. How can science not be materialism? Because Materialism presupposes the non-existence of God in reality and denies the existence of all evidence that contradicts. This idea corresponds to Atheism and the same is not science, but Materialism. Science does not deny the existence of evidence, but recognizes its existence and attempts to explain it.
Or is that you are completely redefining words to suit your bad arguments in an attempt to avoid just how weak they are? When we remember that you are a Materialist your opinion about persons who accept science is explained and, of course, entirely predictable.
Furthermore, how can one have blind faith in evolution when various sciences all use it? I know someone who works at ExxonMobile and their methods of finding oil rely on evolution's timeline. Chevron drills specifically in areas where it is believed to have been high concentrations of ancient plankton which was compressed into oil. Care to explain how two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world are using 'blind faith?' Or are you going to simply pretend it doesn't exist, plug your ears and go "i'm not listening?" You have misunderstood. Evolutionary theory is not science, but scientism. The issue is the inclusion of evolution to be part of science. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2360 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object writes: Science does not deny the existence of evidence, but recognizes its existence and attempts to explain it. Wow... A reasonably correct statement about science, from Cold Foreign Object. Good show, man! Actually, I would rephrase it a bit: science does better than simply 'not denying the existence of evidence.' Science actively pursues evidence, and works hard to figure out how to look for and and where to find evidence. There's also more to it than 'attempting to explain' the evidence. The basic idea is: having seen some evidence, and having attempted to come up with an explanation for it, science then takes this very important additional set of steps:
That is what science does. It is intrinsically materialistic. But apparently, materialism is a dirty word for you, because you equate it with evolution and atheism as stuff to be rejected for some reason, because it's "dogmatic" in some way. I find that kind of confusing -- like maybe you are using the term "evolution" to refer to something very different from what everyone else means by "the theory of evolution", which is an explanation that was derived from observed evidence, and has been tested and supported repeatedly by the scientific method as described above (which you seem to understand and consider acceptable). It looks to me like an inconsistency in your position. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Come again? Where in the statement of "the change in allele frequencies over time" states that God is not the creator? Show me a single respectable textbook that even mentions the word "God."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: I'm not an atheist. But you from your history seem to lack a basic fundamental understanding of what science actually is. Looking at your history, you also seem to run away from a virtually every post and argument you make.
quote: Define contradicting evidence. I suspect you are thinking of evidence free concepts such as faith. Hardly good evidence. What actual evidence exists for God for Materialism to reject? I'd love to see how you define this. Creationists have a long history of dishonestly redefining words and terms to fit their poorly constructed arguments.
quote: What? Do you even understand what science is? Science examines evidence to see what conclusion evidence supports. Science does not explain evidence, it uses evidence to explain what happened. As I suspected, your post signals a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part.
quote: Do you regularly cast everyone who disagrees with your bad arguments as an atheist?
quote: It would help if you actually knew what science was, which you clearly do not. I brought up a perfectly valid example of practical application of evolution in every day products and now you're back peddling. How predictable. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
How exactly does Exxon mobile depend on the evolution timescale for its drilling? The dates that the evolutionary timescale uses are based on assumptions of age. They may drill in specific areas but they don't need dates to do that, they just need to recognize patterns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Those patterns are the history of the Earth writ large. They proclaim evolution.
Kindly ****** If you have nothing nice to say say nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Where in the statement of "the change in allele frequencies over time" states that God is not the creator? This allele frequency thing is only a small portion of what is implied by the word 'evolution'. Change in allele frequencies with time is fine as far as it goes but these small changes are supposed to add up to big changes according to the big picture of 'evolution'. That's where the materialism comes in. Where did the genes come from originally? According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago. If that's true, then God is out of a job.Particularly the God of the Bible who said he created life. The actualevidence that we have suggests that life only comes from pre-existing life. The philisophical thinking of evolutionists suggests that life actually came from non-living chemicals by a natural process and pure chance. Any room for God there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago. So... how do I tell the difference between "dead" chemicals and "alive" chemicals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
You’re making up your own brand of evolution. The official brand of Evolution™ makes no claims about how life originated whatsoever. So, if you want to shoot down your own creation, go for it.
I’ve little doubt that most Evolutionist® do believe that life developed from nonliving matter. I’ve also little doubt that most Evolutionist® do believe that the peanut butter should go inside the sandwich. But neither are tenets of ToE™. Kindly ****** If you have nothing nice to say say nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Beretta writes: According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago. If that's true, then God is out of a job. Particularly the God of the Bible who said he created life. Putting this in context and on-topic, claims such as those found in the Bible that are based upon faith rather than evidence will inevitably clash with reality. This thread addresses the "Oh yeah? Well so are you!" approach of some creationists who while conceding that creationist beliefs are based upon faith charge that scientific theories are, too. Clashes are unavoidable when religion claims God did something in the real world, because science will often uncover evidence pointing to natural processes. That's the risk religion runs when it makes claims absence of real world evidence. This isn't a case of science saying anything about God, but of religion making claims that are demonstrably false.
The actual evidence that we have suggests that life only comes from pre-existing life. Actually, the evidence of simpler and more primitive life with each preceding epoch back in time tells us that at some point life was so simple that it was just chemistry. This is a scientific position based upon evidence, not faith. Yes, it contradicts the beliefs of many religions, but as their positions are faith-based it should come as no surprise when they don't measure up against real world evidence. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Those patterns are the history of the Earth writ large. They proclaim evolution. No they don't -they proclaim sudden appearance followed by general stasis. You have to believe in evolution before you imagine the proclamation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
So... how do I tell the difference between "dead" chemicals and "alive" chemicals? It's the difference between chemistry and biology -a big difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
So... how do I tell? What's the diffence between a "living" chemical, and a "dead" chemical? What can I see under the microscope that will let me tell the difference? What properties are different?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024