Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2018 3:54 AM
274 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 272 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,966 Year: 8,789/29,783 Month: 1,036/1,977 Week: 174/380 Day: 7/51 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
22Next
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 241 of 326 (462085)
03-30-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Percy
03-27-2008 8:30 PM


quote:
In that case you might be curious why some people believe that science, which stresses evidence and replication, is faith-based.



Yes! but somehow I dont see any of that taking place, the only people Ive been able to draw argument with are the ones who believe as I do that science is not faith based as religion. It's all just been infighting, and I havnt really believed anything that I've been arguing because of it. I still argue, of course for brevity, but I dont understand if theres all these creationists out there who would disagree with the notion, where the heck are they? They seem to be either intimidated, or too ignorant to take argument with anything I've posted. which is rather embarassing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Percy, posted 03-27-2008 8:30 PM Percy has not yet responded

Beretta
Member (Idle past 3398 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 242 of 326 (462086)
03-30-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Granny Magda
03-30-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Hello Granny Magda -

some people use those "assumptions" to find oil.

Do they use age assumptions or just particular layers of sedimentary rock based on particular properties that may not be the age they think they are?

Consider this; if the radioactive mood swings that you appear to be proposing are real, how could any nuclear reactor be safe?

I wouldn't call it mood swings really, I'd call it an event in the past that was associated with a rate that no longer applies. Perhaps when the planet was created/evolved there could be something there that could have caused it. Just because I can do something fast now, doesn't mean I always will be able to. Perhaps everything is running down like with entropy and a slowly approaching heat death and decay rates might slow more in time though possibly barely perceptible now.I don't imagine imminent danger at all just that some things change and we can't always extrapolate and state as fact what we can't know. There's a certain amount of faith involved in some forms of extrapolation that may be inappropriate.Perhaps we have a hyperbolic graph not a straight line one even if all we see is a straight one now.
These suppositions are based on other techniques that show that the earth may in actual fact be pretty young and so we need some kind of explanation for why the old age contradicting dates give the results they do.The evidence available out there is not consistent with regards to the age of the earth.

since changes in decay rates are only considered important by creationists because they are aimed at explaining away all the evidence the contradicts an old Earth),

I think you mean a young earth there and I take your point but do you understand mine? Techniques that give young ages are plentiful and yes, they are contradicted by radiometric aging techniques but that doesn't mean we need to throw away all the aging techniques that point to a young earth. If it's young we must try to fathom the contradiction on the basis of all the evidence and just as we try to give a possible cause for all the old age dates, evolutionists who prefer them due to their faith in an old earth (due to its necessity for evolution from a common ancestor to have occurred) need to try to explain why other techniques point to a young earth - otherwise their faith that radiometric dating is the only reliable indicator is not based on the whole picture and that would be a faith-based decision.

Ok big storm coming -got to shut down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 03-30-2008 9:15 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Admin, posted 03-30-2008 11:47 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 243 of 326 (462087)
03-30-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Beretta
03-30-2008 4:43 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Hi Beretta,

Though I'm replying as Percy, I think it likely that I'll be providing moderator-like suggestions.

Beretta writes:

You have data -I wonder how many results were chucked out in the gathering of the data -I hear that it is a high percentage that doesn't come out saying what it should according to the age theory invented in the 19th century.

Again you have too many incidences of dating carried out on rock of known age that come out completely vastly wrong -there is something very wrong with the method. Why trust it for rocks of unknown age?

We generally restrict this type of general charge of some type of malfeasance or fraud to threads designated specifically for that purpose. That's because arguments of this nature can be used in literally any thread, and so we don't allow someone with a propensity for making such charges to bog down thread after thread. We instead restrict their discussion to threads where that is the topic.

You have evidence that radiometric dating works, I have evidence that you shouldn't trust those dates.

Precisely. Evidence, not faith.

No, I don't know why we need long ages, please explain.

Without long ages the whole humpty dumpty of 'evolution from a common ancestor' bites the dust. You have to ignore all the dating techniques that indicate thousands not billions of years because evolution would not be feasible under those conditions.

I don't think the argument that geologists and physicists were influenced by biologists to falsely produce data supporting an ancient earth has anything to do with the topic. If you'd like to discuss this then you should propose a new thread.

So now it's a multi-generational scientific conspiracy?

No, its a worldview problem. If you are brainwashed into long ages and evolution...

And if you are brainwashed into short ages and creation...

In other words, this type of argument is a wash, since it applies equally in either direction. If you really want to argue it, propose a new thread, but please focus on the topic in this thread.

Creationists are constantly causing dust-ups by requesting laws and school board policies that give special treatment to their views.

I frankly can only assume that you get that sort of rubbish from your over-enthusiastic cohorts.

If you really want to argue whether what I claimed was actually the case in Dayton, Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, Kansas, Dover, etc., propose a new thread.

Well Intelligent Design is doing that - using scientific arguments for design.

To the extent that that's true then I'm glad to hear it. But notice that inherent in your claim is the assumption that science is based upon evidence, not faith.

When creationists start focusing their efforts on doing science instead of public relations...

Well they have to first re-establish freedom of thought and expression which is being squashed and penalized in 'science' due to a minority priesthood that holds the microphone.

If you'd like to argue this point then please propose a new thread.

I don't think there was anything in your post that addressed the topic. I continue to believe you're in the wrong thread for the arguments you're trying to make. If you keep attempting to raise these issues here in this thread you're just going to get suspended. You can discuss almost anything you like here at EvC Forum, there are literally dozens of different topic forums, but we do ask that you stay on topic. The goal is to have discussions that actually get somewhere rather than becoming mired in a confusing tangle of off-topic side-discussions and personal recriminations.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 4:43 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Beretta, posted 04-01-2008 10:29 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12552
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 244 of 326 (462088)
03-30-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Beretta
03-30-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Hi Beretta,

Please read the opening post, Message 1. It will give you a pretty good idea of the topic of this thread.

See you tomorrow.

Please, no replies.

Edited by Admin, : Add last line.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 10:56 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3398 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 245 of 326 (462192)
04-01-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
03-30-2008 11:43 AM


Faith in Science
Hi Percy,

We generally restrict this type of general charge of some type of malfeasance or fraud to threads designated specifically for that purpose.

Actually I'm not talking about fraud, I'm talking about faith in a worldview that requires that the age of the earth can be measured in billions of years causing people to lean on radiometric dating because it does give long ages - though based on many assumptions that cannot be proven.Throwing out dates that don't fit I attribute to faith in an old earth and the need to remain in an acceptable range and explain away, or throw away, those dates that did not fit due to a belief that something must be wrong with them -the circular reasoning way of thinking.

Beretta writes:

You have evidence that radiometric dating works, I have evidence that you shouldn't trust those dates.

Precisely. Evidence, not faith.

Yes evidence but to the exclusion of other evidence diametrically opposed to it.There's the faith issue again.

I don't think the argument that geologists and physicists were influenced by biologists to falsely produce data supporting an ancient earth has anything to do with the topic.

Personally I believe it belongs in this thread and again, I think that everyone who does science is to a certain extent influenced by a worldview that says lots of time was needed and geologists came up with suitable uniformatarian dates for sedimentary rock strata well before radiometric data helped to confirm the bias - while at the same time ignoring those dating techniques that make macro-evolution look impossible.

Beretta writes:

No, its a worldview problem. If you are brainwashed into long ages and evolution...

And if you are brainwashed into short ages and creation...

Well that's exactly the problem since it is faith all around to a certain extent but there is also a lot of contradictory evidence all around and that is what creationists are trying to address. Intelligent design may not focus on the age issues, they are divided about that as there are a lot that seem to accept an old earth.

Intelligent design is looking more at other aspects of science where purely material causes do not seem adequate to explain life.According to the evidence, materialists believe in gradual evolution and according to the contradictory evidence, intelligent design supporters believe that there has to have been an intelligence involved in the information that is in every living thing that cannot be based on physical, material causes alone.

Beretta writes:

Well Intelligent Design is doing that - using scientific arguments for design.

To the extent that that's true then I'm glad to hear it. But notice that inherent in your claim is the assumption that science is based upon evidence, not faith.

To a certain extent yes and to a certain extent a philisophical bias plays a part - faith in a worldview devoted to material explanations for all things and a reluctance for anything else outside of that to be included in the argument.There is a tendency to only allow for that evidence that supports the evolutionary worldview to be acceptable to 'science'.
To say that God or a supernatural intelligence can't be allowed
to have played a part in the production of life is to ignore the information problem of the genetic code.Intelligent design proponents are trying to propose a way of explaining that information that is not part of the material medium carrying it.Surely if God or an outside intelligence did play a part in the production of life, then 'science' has been wrongly defined and will then never lead to the truth of what actually happened in the past.

The goal is to have discussions that actually get somewhere rather than becoming mired in a confusing tangle of off-topic side-discussions and personal recriminations

None of this is personal but all of it is relevant as far as I can see. It's a discussion of how faith may play as much a part in 'science' as presently defined as any religious worldview that looks to evidence to support it.I think people are just looking for the truth and not everyone finds macro-evolution and material causes sufficient to explain what we can see.

What about the brain? Intelligence? Our ability to rationalize and understand? Could they have possibly arisen through purely natural causes? Are our brains just a chance accumulation of random mutations? Our eyes? How do they convert light energy into something that we can understand with our brains? Our ears -how do they convert waves of compressions and rarefactions into something that our brains can convert into information? We understand the physical pathways but not how chance mutations could have made our brains capable of processing the information.It takes a lot of faith to believe that material processes could have brought all this about,don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 03-30-2008 11:43 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Admin, posted 04-01-2008 11:04 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Rahvin, posted 04-01-2008 11:58 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12552
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 246 of 326 (462195)
04-01-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Beretta
04-01-2008 10:29 AM


Re: Faith in Science
Hi Beretta,

I can only refer you again to Message 1. The only thing your position has in common with Rob's position described in Message 1 is your use of the word "faith". Maybe you're not familiar with Rob's views, but he has a very religious outlook. He thinks that science uses the same faith to support its theories as he does in believing that when he dies his soul goes to heaven.

Your argument, actually more than one but I'll attempt to sum them up under a single umbrella, is that the assumptions underpinning mainstream science (what you're calling a "worldview") are insufficiently supported with evidence and are of questionable validity.

Why don't you just propose a new thread (over at Proposed New Topics) to discuss what you'd really like to talk about, the ill-advised adoption of naturalistic assumptions by science. In other words, you really want to talk about naturalism, not faith.

Please, no replies.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Beretta, posted 04-01-2008 10:29 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 247 of 326 (462197)
04-01-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Beretta
04-01-2008 10:29 AM


Re: Faith in Science
Actually I'm not talking about fraud, I'm talking about faith in a worldview that requires that the age of the earth can be measured in billions of years causing people to lean on radiometric dating because it does give long ages - though based on many assumptions that cannot be proven.Throwing out dates that don't fit I attribute to faith in an old earth and the need to remain in an acceptable range and explain away, or throw away, those dates that did not fit due to a belief that something must be wrong with them -the circular reasoning way of thinking.

Two things, Beretta:

First, the old Earth model is based on the evidence. You may disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but it still has nothing to do with faith. Again, faith is defined as a belief not supported by any objective evidence.

Second, even though this is in danger of getting extremely off-topic, you're completely wrong about your doubts regarding geological dating methods. The old Earth model is regarded as factual by science becasue it is verified by many independent dating methods. Rock layers, multiple forms of radiometric dating, tree rings, fossil numbers, cosmological dating...all of these and more agree that the Earth is old, simultaneously, from multiple independant avenues of study. Your suggestion that "things may have been different in the past" is refuted by the fact that, were radiological decay rates to have been different, they would have needed to change by different amounts for different radioisotopes. Altering the speed of light to allow for distant stars to be visible is untenable as well, because altering the speed of light by even small amounts would result in a Universe completely different from the one we live in.

When hundreds of compeltely independant bits of data all suggest that the Earth is old, and then agree on the rough age of the planet, the conclusion is clear.

But again, relevant to this thread, the important bit is that the old Earth model is based on objective evidence, and as such is not faith.

Like ICANT, you seem to be confusing "based on objective evidence" with "solidly proven." We don't do much of that in science. We make tentative conclusions based on evidence, and the tentativity decreases with additional evidnece in support of those conclusions. We know the behavior of gravity pretty damned well, for example, but the Theory of Gravity is still tentative pending additional information. Newton's version of gravity was completely outdone by Einstein's model - we only use Newton's equasions today because they are easier and "good enough" at the right scales, like sending space probes to Mars.

You could say that Newton's model was incomplete - but that fact doesn't mean it was based on faith.

For another example, the flat-Earth model was based at one time on the evidence available - the world looked flat, and nobody had ever gone all the way around to show that it wasn't. The flat-Earth model was, at that time, not based on faith, but rather on evidence.

In the same way, regardless of whether you agree with the interpretation of the data or not, the old Earth model is based on the evidence we currently have available, and is not based on faith. Whether it's correct or not doesn't even come into the debate - it's based on a self-consistent interpretation of all available objective evidence.

Yes evidence but to the exclusion of other evidence diametrically opposed to it.There's the faith issue again.

Please create a new thread and put forward this diametrically opposed evidence. If it's actually evidence that contradicts the old Earth model, I'd surely love to hear about it. So far all I've heard are doubts and disagreements from people without even the slightest education in the fields of geology, biology, cosmology, or radiology. It's really not surprising that someone who doesn't understand, for example, radiology, would disagree with radiometric dating.

Personally I believe it belongs in this thread and again, I think that everyone who does science is to a certain extent influenced by a worldview that says lots of time was needed and geologists came up with suitable uniformatarian dates for sedimentary rock strata well before radiometric data helped to confirm the bias - while at the same time ignoring those dating techniques that make macro-evolution look impossible.

You have it backwards, Beretta. You're projecting. See, scientists take great pains to avoid preconceived notions influencing their models. The scientific method is specifically designed to follow the evidence wherever it goes, even when it contradicts commonly held beliefs. When Newton's models were shown to be incomplete, scientists embraced Einstein's more accurate model. When the flat-Earth model was shown by evidence to be incorrect, scientists discarded it in favor of the model more consistent with the facts.

The evidence is what leads to the old Earth "worldview," Beretta, not the other way around.

Well that's exactly the problem since it is faith all around to a certain extent but there is also a lot of contradictory evidence all around and that is what creationists are trying to address. Intelligent design may not focus on the age issues, they are divided about that as there are a lot that seem to accept an old earth.

This is exactly the point of this thread: You have some inner need to rquate science with faith becasue it puts your faith-based beliefs on equal standing with the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, etc.

It is not faith "all around" to any extent, Beretta. There is no faith involved in science. Science is entirely based upon objective, reproducible evidence. Whether you agree or disagree with an interpretation of that evidence is irrelevant - it's based on the evidence, and so cannot be called faith. The two are not the same.

Intelligent design is looking more at other aspects of science where purely material causes do not seem adequate to explain life.According to the evidence, materialists believe in gradual evolution and according to the contradictory evidence, intelligent design supporters believe that there has to have been an intelligence involved in the information that is in every living thing that cannot be based on physical, material causes alone.

Intelligent Design doesn't even propose that, Bareta. Get your models straight. ID proposes an intelligent designer, but doesn't say anything at all about nonphysical, nonmaterial causes. ID takes great pains to avoid identifying the designer.

Yes, we all know that they're talking about the Christian deity. But their models do not, anywhere, speak of "nonmaterial" causes. They speak of "irreducible complexity" and incredulity at the thought that a system as complicated and functional as life could have evolved through natural causes - but they never mention "spirits" or anything else "nonphysical."

Aside from that, ID has been completely destroyed in real scientific circles. The only place ID has made any gains is with the uneducated, religiously biased public who can be easily swayed by anyone with a silver tongue who preaches to the choir. They have no evidence. But then, ID isn't the topic of this thread.

To a certain extent yes and to a certain extent a philisophical bias plays a part - faith in a worldview devoted to material explanations for all things and a reluctance for anything else outside of that to be included in the argument.There is a tendency to only allow for that evidence that supports the evolutionary worldview to be acceptable to 'science'.

The belief that the Universe can be explained through natural means is not one based on faith - it's based on past experience. So far, we have been able to model the Universe through natural means with a very high degree of accuracy. This is evidence that those things we have not yet explained likely have naturalistic explanations, as well. Again, there is no faith here.

To say that God or a supernatural intelligence can't be allowed
to have played a part in the production of life is to ignore the information problem of the genetic code.Intelligent design proponents are trying to propose a way of explaining that information that is not part of the material medium carrying it.Surely if God or an outside intelligence did play a part in the production of life, then 'science' has been wrongly defined and will then never lead to the truth of what actually happened in the past.

They most certainly are allowed, Beretta, as soon as objective evidence is uncovered that requires their addition into the model. So far, no objective evidence for the existence of any particular deity (or indeed any "higher intelligence" at all) has been shown to exist. Parsimony dictates that such entities, with no evidence requiring their addition into the equasion, are at best irrelevant and at worst nonexistent.

Beliving in their existence despite this lack of any objective evidence is what defines faith. Beretta. It's not a differing opinion as to the interpretation of evidence - that would still be a belief based on evidence. Faith is a belief based on no objective evidence whatsoever.

None of this is personal but all of it is relevant as far as I can see. It's a discussion of how faith may play as much a part in 'science' as presently defined as any religious worldview that looks to evidence to support it.I think people are just looking for the truth and not everyone finds macro-evolution and material causes sufficient to explain what we can see.

What about the brain? Intelligence? Our ability to rationalize and understand? Could they have possibly arisen through purely natural causes? Are our brains just a chance accumulation of random mutations? Our eyes? How do they convert light energy into something that we can understand with our brains? Our ears -how do they convert waves of compressions and rarefactions into something that our brains can convert into information? We understand the physical pathways but not how chance mutations could have made our brains capable of processing the information.It takes a lot of faith to believe that material processes could have brought all this about,don't you think?

What you just said in the part Ive bolded is that any unknowns require faith. Is this some whacky extension of the "god of the gaps?" When we say "Everything we do know fits with this model, but we don't know much about this other thing," where is the statement of faith? How does "I don't know" equate to faith? It's silly. There is nothing about a lack of knowledge surrounding the human brain and cognitive thought that contradicts evolutionary models - it's just an unknown area under current examination.

You see faith everywhere, Beretta. Using your loose definition of faith, I should say that I have "faith" that there is a keyboard in front of me, or that I have to have "faith" that you exist because I don't know your name.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Beretta, posted 04-01-2008 10:29 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Admin, posted 04-01-2008 2:15 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12552
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 248 of 326 (462204)
04-01-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Rahvin
04-01-2008 11:58 AM


Re: Faith in Science
I appreciate yours and Beretta's efforts to tie your discussion into the thread's topic, but it is apparent that what people really want to discuss is evolution, radiometric dating and naturalism.

In this thread I'm trying to avoid another discussion similar to the one's with ICANT and Rob, where interpretations of evidence they disagreed with were called faith. I wouldn't allow a thread arguing that science had proven God doesn't exist, and I'm trying to discourage discussion in threads that make this silly faith argument. I'll keep an open mind and keep my eye out for a new angle on this argument, but I haven't seen one so far.

I check for new topic proposals many times during the day. Any new topic proposal has a good chance of quick promotion.

No replies, please.

Edited by Admin, : Add last line.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Rahvin, posted 04-01-2008 11:58 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 1917 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 249 of 326 (462225)
04-01-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Beretta
03-30-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Take me to a magic show!
1) You have no evidence to back up any claims you have made
2) You have no answers to our examples of how science is not faith based
3) You ignore how your arguments are proven false
4) You keep stating that science is faith based DESPITE warnings by the admin to back your claims up.
5) You fail to argue how practical application is subsantially different from the actual science and thus how the basis for the application is faith based

If you have an evidence backed argument as to how science is faith based, make it.

We're getting sick and tired of your "it's faith based, but I have no evidence to back my claims up"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 9:41 AM Beretta has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 250 of 326 (463937)
04-22-2008 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
03-13-2008 11:14 AM


Re: defining faith
tesla writes:

belief is not faith.

Actually Belief is the verb form of Faith. I am not assuming this.. look back at the definitions of the original Koiné Greek of the New Testiment.

You have 'faith' that something happened or will happen.
You act in 'belief' of it.
Of course we as english speaking western and european decent have coined our own definitions of the two. But if you read the context of the original languages of the bible you will see they have different meanings.
-----
Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab. They are both the study of Origins.

The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.

Edited by antiLIE, : pushed submit before i was done typing... need coffee...lol


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV] οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:14 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 8:14 AM 1071 has responded
 Message 252 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 8:18 AM 1071 has responded
 Message 298 by tesla, posted 04-24-2008 5:12 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 251 of 326 (463941)
04-22-2008 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by 1071
04-22-2008 7:20 AM


Re: defining faith
Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab.

Wrong. Molecular biologists do exactly this every day. Teenagers are observing evolution in college biology labs as we speak (or type). Without the application of evolutionary theory to laboratory work, we wouldn't have any understanding of how bacterial populations develop immunity to antibiotics, nor would we have any ability to find new drugs to combat this problem.

They are both the study of Origins.

Yes and no. The theory of evolution describes the origin of species from precursor species, but not the origin of life from non-life. That field of study is called abiogenesis, and whilst it is related to evolutionary theory, it is a separate pursuit.

The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.

I'm sorry antiLIE, but if you don't consider evolution to be science then I am struggling to imagine what you would consider science. Would you object to physicists trying to pass off their dogmatic beliefs in "gravity"as science?

The theory of evolution is based upon evidence, not dogma. If you have some more detailed explanation of how this is not the case, I'd love to hear it.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 7:20 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 9:16 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 252 of 326 (463942)
04-22-2008 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by 1071
04-22-2008 7:20 AM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

Of course we as english speaking western and european decent have coined our own definitions of the two. But if you read the context of the original languages of the bible you will see they have different meanings.

And there was silly me, thinking that we were speaking modern English on this website, when all the time we should be writing in ancient Greek!

Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab. They are both the study of Origins.

Evolution can certainly be observed and studied in a lab, and creation cannot. Perhaps you meant "speciation" (which can occasionally be observed) or "common descent" rather than evolution.

The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.

The theory of evolution is definitely scientific. It is based on observation, evidence, and the confirmation of some of its predictions. None of the many (contradicting) creation mythologies are scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 7:20 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 8:53 AM bluegenes has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 253 of 326 (463947)
04-22-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by bluegenes
04-22-2008 8:18 AM


Re: defining faith
Bluegenes writes:

And there was silly me, thinking that we were speaking modern English on this website, when all the time we should be writing in ancient Greek!


Agnoia eftyxias einai kata ti gnwmi sas.

Bluegenes writes:

Evolution can certainly be observed and studied in a lab, and creation cannot. Perhaps you meant "speciation" (which can occasionally be observed) or "common descent" rather than evolution.


You are correct. I was speaking of Macroevolution. Microevolution is observed all the time.

Bluegenes writes:

The theory of evolution is definitely scientific. It is based on observation, evidence, and the confirmation of some of its predictions. None of the many (contradicting) creation mythologies are scientific.


Microevolution is based on observation. "creation mythologies" are also based on evidence in addition to ancient documentation.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV] οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 8:18 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 12:18 PM 1071 has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 254 of 326 (463948)
04-22-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Granny Magda
04-22-2008 8:14 AM


Re: defining faith
Granny Magda writes:

I'm sorry antiLIE, but if you don't consider evolution to be science then I am struggling to imagine what you would consider science.

Science comes from Latin, scientia, meaning "knowledge". Also 'Gnosis' from the Koiné. So we know that science is knowledge. "Any systematic knowledge or practice." So you want to know what I concider science.. I would say things that can be observed using the scientific method...
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results

With particles to people Macroevolution, how can you possibly consider billions of years scientifically?

The same applies to Creation. You can not scientiffically observe God creating a universe in a lab...


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV] οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις
This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 8:14 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-22-2008 9:35 AM 1071 has responded
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 10:26 AM 1071 has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 255 of 326 (463950)
04-22-2008 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by 1071
04-22-2008 9:16 AM


Re: defining faith
antiLie writes:

With particles to people Macroevolution, how can you possibly consider billions of years scientifically?

By examining and analyzing the evidence.

Faith means not having evidence for what you believe but believing it anyway.

If science could be reduced to a single principle, I think many would agree that it means making sure you do have evidence for what you believe.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 9:16 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 10:18 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018