|
Author
|
Topic: Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
DrAdequate writes: No, that is not what it sounds like. Observation is the opposite of imagination. you can't observe evolution happening...apparently it happens over hundreds of thousands if not, millions of years. So, apart from Rrhains bacteria, how are you 'observing' evolution?
DrAdequate writes: Because not only can evolution be proved, but fiat creationism can be disproved. By reference to the same evidence. so are you saying that evolution disproves a creator? (because many here have said evolution in no way attempts to do such a thing)
DrAdequate writes: You have a false premise there. Evolution has been proven by scientific investigation. And that is why it is accepted by scientists who have tossed fiat creationism into the trash basket of failed ideas. but not all scientists have ditched creation...many here claim to believe in God. And science does not always need direct observation (evolution) to believe something exists. Aastronomers have detected a number of planets orbiting distant stars. They havnt seen them, but they see how their gravity perturbs the motion of parent stars, hence they know they must exist...black holes being another example. If related evidence and not direct observation is an adequate basis for scientists to accept what is invisible, why is that consideration not given to those who believe in a Creator. Afterall, they use a similar basis for accepting what they cannotsee.
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
Message 104 of 132 (514015)
07-03-2009 7:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
07-03-2009 7:35 AM
|
|
Paulk writes: Since you know that indirect observation is used in science what makes you think that direct observation isn't used ? I've asked what direct observations are used and the only answer so far is from Rrhain who says that because bacteria has the ability to change and adapt, it proves evolution well, we are not bacteria are we? Or am i to believe bacteria is our common ancestor???
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2009 7:35 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
DrAdequate writes: Thus proving that Christianity and biblolatry are two different things. i would be more inclined to say that 'religion' is very different to christianity & the bible.
DrAdequate writes: It is more likely that in theology school they taught him how to reconcile Genesis with reality. that just shows that theology school isnt concerned with faith, it does not attempt to produce faith. This would certainly explain why the church's are in such a bad way. I certainly dont believe evolution is a reality...i think it is another 'flat earth' philosophy that will give us something to laugh about in the near future.
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
DrAdequate writes: And you have been told that we observe the evidence for evolution. but what specific observances are you referring to?
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 110 of 132 (514023)
07-03-2009 8:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
07-03-2009 7:54 AM
|
|
Paulk writes: I know that you restricted the observations you were interested in to direct observations. I am asking why you did it, when you clearly know that science doesn't make any such restriction. because there doesnt seem to be a clear cut answer. The scientific method 'was' at one time about observing and experimenting, now its simply observing and experiments are not always necessary (especially for evolution) Yet some say that evolution can be reproduced in a lab, others say you cant directly observe it, others say its the fossil evidence that proves it (of which there are huge gaps) Also, why is it perfectly acceptable for science to have beliefs in things they cannot see based on indirect observations, yet creationists cannot? This is confusing to me, its like saying, I can use this tool to prove my point, but you cannot use it to prove yours.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2009 7:54 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
DrAdequate writes: Observations of morphology, developmental biology, paleontology, genetics, biogeography, behavioral ecology, plus, of course, being able to watch evolution happening. thats very general, i would like to hear something specific (apart from Rrhains bacteria example)
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 116 of 132 (514034)
07-03-2009 9:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
07-03-2009 8:43 AM
|
|
Paulk writes: The answer is simple. Creationists do NOT use the same tool. Nobody is preventing them from using it. Except themselves. lets say that 'tool' is observation, why can observation not be used in the study of a creator? even the bible says that 'the qualities of God can be perceived by the things he made' why is the observation of the physical universe an evidence for evolution but not for creation?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2009 8:43 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
DrAdequate writes: And I hope that this futile daydream brings you comfort. It's been comforting reality-deniers for the last hundred and fifty years, after all. The faith that any day now someone will make some observation that will disprove evolution has been literally handed down from generation to generation. And that is laughable right now. 150yrs of evolution is a very short time in the grand scheme of things... in some way its been good because its given people a choice and at the same time its weeded out religions who also lack faith. I'll be the first to agree that its a satisfactory alternative to creation. Im not against it, i would just like ppl to stop calling it a fact lol.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 130 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2009 7:19 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 119 of 132 (514041)
07-03-2009 9:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by PaulK
07-03-2009 9:06 AM
|
|
Paulk writes: Are you asking why the evidence happens to favour evolution ? Or are you still going on about some imaginary double-standard ? the latter...i believe the evidence of the universe and life favors creation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2009 9:06 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2