Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2018 1:41 AM
145 online now:
GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 141 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,722 Year: 13,545/29,783 Month: 991/1,576 Week: 203/303 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
1071
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 256 of 326 (463954)
04-22-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
04-22-2008 9:35 AM


Re: defining faith
Percy writes:

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

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Substance - (hy-po'sta-sis) - "standing Firm"
Hope - (el-pid'-zo) - "waiting on a promise given"
Evidence - (el'-eng-khos)- that by which a thing is proved or tested

"Standing firm on the promise given (is) the proof of 'things not seen'"


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-22-2008 9:35 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 11:48 AM 1071 has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 257 of 326 (463955)
04-22-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by 1071
04-22-2008 9:16 AM


Re: defining faith
OK antiLIE, apart from some irrelevant stuff about etymology, your definition of science is far from the worst that I've heard. I think your problem is that you have a very fixed and inaccurate view of what a scientific experiment actually is. It need not take place in a lab you know.

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

It is interesting that you claim not to be a creationist, but you employ familiar creationist strawmen, like "macroevolution", not a term that scientists tend to use.

The answer to your question is that billions of years of evolution can be tested in exactly the way you suggest; by experiment. Of course it's impossible to test the whole thing at once, so biologists, palaeontologists and others make and test specific, small scale predictions and test them, one at a time. Over time, these small scale observations cohere into a greater picture.

A good example is tiktaalik, the famous transitional species between fish and amphibians. The scientists who discovered it weren't just mooching about, looking for random fossils you know. They didn't just luck out. They knew roughly the time when fish/amphibian transitions were taking place. They knew where to find rocks of about that period. They went looking for fish/amphibian transitions and they found one (and a real doozy as well!). They made a prediction and experimentally tested it.

It all sounds pretty scientific to me. The theory of evolution is supported by hundreds of thousands of such observations. That is very far from dogma.

You can not scientiffically observe God creating a universe in a lab...

You know, there's a reason for that...

"Standing firm on the promise given (is) the proof of 'things not seen'"

Hmmm. I would like to see that one stand up in a peer-reviewed paper!

Edited by Granny Magda, : Added last quote and response.


Mutate and Survive
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 258 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 11:19 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 274 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 10:37 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
1071
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 258 of 326 (463960)
04-22-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
04-22-2008 10:26 AM


Re: defining faith
Granny Magda writes:

It is interesting that you claim not to be a creationist, but you employ familiar creationist strawmen, like "macroevolution", not a term that scientists tend to use.

1. I have never claimed not to be creationist.
2. Macroevolution / Microevolution is what Biology college textbooks call it.. I am just repeating what is taught.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 10:26 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Taz, posted 04-22-2008 11:46 AM 1071 has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1186 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 259 of 326 (463963)
04-22-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by 1071
04-22-2008 11:19 AM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

2. Macroevolution / Microevolution is what Biology college textbooks call it.. I am just repeating what is taught.


And physicists tend to refer to the hydrogen fusion that goes on in the sun "hydrogen burning". Your argument is the same as arguing that since physicists use the term "hydrogen burning" to describe what goes on in the sun, they must really mean the sun is burning chemically.

You really should stop arguing semantics and really try to understand the concepts in biological science. Being able to nitpick people's words doesn't impress anyone.

We are all telling you right now. Yes, scientists tend to use the word "macroevolution" in text books simply because it is easier to convey the idea across to students much the same way that physicists tend to use "hydrogen burning" to convey the idea of fusion across to students. "Macroevolution" is nothing more than a description of lots and lots of evolutionary steps.

Let me know when you're ready to stop arguing semantics and start getting down to the real business.

By the way, there is a reason why I brought up "hydrogen burning". Your messiah Kent Hovind was one of those that didn't know that the term was meant by physicists to describe hydrogen fusion. Arguing semantics doesn't impress anyone.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 11:19 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 11:58 AM Taz has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 260 of 326 (463964)
04-22-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by 1071
04-22-2008 10:18 AM


Re: defining faith
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Substance - (hy-po'sta-sis) - "standing Firm"
Hope - (el-pid'-zo) - "waiting on a promise given"
Evidence - (el'-eng-khos)- that by which a thing is proved or tested

"Standing firm on the promise given (is) the proof of 'things not seen'"

I'm sorry, when exactly were the Bible, poetry, metaphor and flowery language counted as definitions?

I thought that was what we used dictionaries for.

quote:
faith –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Relevant definition bolded. Perhaps, antiLIE, you should go back and read the rest of this thread, where we've been over this exact issue already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 10:18 AM 1071 has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 261 of 326 (463966)
04-22-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Taz
04-22-2008 11:46 AM


Re: defining faith
Taz writes:

You really should stop arguing semantics and really try to understand the concepts in biological science. Being able to nitpick people's words doesn't impress anyone. Let me know when you're ready to stop arguing semantics and start getting down to the real business.

LOL.. I agree, I wasn't the one nitpicking the words and arguing semantics, that was Granny Magda.

Taz writes:

Your messiah Kent Hovind


Nice debasement.

Rahvin writes:

I'm sorry, when exactly were the Bible, poetry, metaphor and flowery language counted as definitions?

It is not about your definitions, it is about the translations.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Taz, posted 04-22-2008 11:46 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:06 PM 1071 has responded
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2008 12:24 PM 1071 has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 1:52 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 262 of 326 (463969)
04-22-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by 1071
04-22-2008 11:58 AM


Re: defining faith
It is not about your definitions, it is about the translations.

This thread is not about Biblical translation. This thread is about those individuals who see the need to equate objective evidence with subjective faith.

It only tangentially has anything to do with the Bible in that those individuals tend to be Christian, but it applies equally to any subjective faith-based belief, like alien abductions, fairies, other religions, etc.

Your Biblical translation has literally nothing to do with this thread. Again, perhaps you should go back and read the rest of it, as it appears that you have not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 11:58 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 12:17 PM Rahvin has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 263 of 326 (463970)
04-22-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rahvin
04-22-2008 12:06 PM


Re: defining faith
Rahvin writes:

Your Biblical translation has literally nothing to do with this thread. Again, perhaps you should go back and read the rest of it, as it appears that you have not.


Incorrect. My definition was of FAITH. the Thread is "Equating science with faith" ... you said it is "equate objective evidence with subjective faith" If one is to try and point out how Evolution and Creation both use faith, we have to have a clear understanding of what 'biblical' faith is. I was difining the biblical translation of FAITH


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:06 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:32 PM 1071 has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 264 of 326 (463971)
04-22-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by 1071
04-22-2008 8:53 AM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

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

If you were to observe Macro-evolution in real time, it would look like Micro-evolution.:) They're one and the same thing. Just as the small scale continental drift that can be observed in real time is the same thing as continents moving hundreds of miles over millions of years.

Finding out about the Earth's history is done by present day observations. In exactly the same way as we examine a murder for which there are no witnesses (except the murderer) in order to find out how it was done and by whom, the past can and is being discovered.

This seems to upset superstitious people who cling to ancient mythologies about the Earth's history, but if you really were "antiLIE", you wouldn't be one of these.

Microevolution is based on observation.

So is Macro-evolution, in the way explained above, and because speciation can be directly observed.

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

I have yet to see any evidence for any of them. The fact that there are so many, from so many different cultures, is definitely evidence of a human tendency to make things up.

As for ancient documentation, the story of King Arthur may be documented, but that doesn't mean that a King with a magic sword really existed. So the next time that you read about Hercules being a demi-God, or whatever myths your religion involves, take it with a pinch of salt.;)

I think you're probably trying to equate your faith (and desires) with historical science by claiming that neither are science, so I suppose we're on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 8:53 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 12:27 PM bluegenes has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 265 of 326 (463974)
04-22-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by 1071
04-22-2008 11:58 AM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

I wasn't the one nitpicking the words and arguing semantics...

antiLIE writes:

Actually Belief is the verb form of Faith.

"Belief" is a noun, antiLIE.

antiLIE writes:

Science comes from Latin, scientia, meaning "knowledge".

And the scientific name for ostrich (Struthio camelus), literally translated, means "camel sparrow," even though an ostrich is neither a camel nor a sparrow. It's not even particularly closely related to either. In science, we use Latin and Greek roots to make up our own words for describing things. So, knowing the roots of scientific words (including the word "science") doesn't mean a bleeding thing: it's just an invented system of nomenclature based on languages of antiquity.

antiLIE writes:

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

What is the difference between me and you? When you get right down to it, it's the sequences in our genomes. What's the difference between you and an orangutan? When you get right down to it, it's the sequences in your genomes. And, what's the difference between you and a dragonfly? When you get right down to it, it's the sequences in your genomes.

There is no good dividing line between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, because the differences between very similar things are essentially the same as the differences between very different things, differing only in number of nucleotide bases that are not the same. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there is a magical dividing line between the two. So, if we can observe one nucleotide base pair changing, why can't we observe two, three, four? Why, then, could we not observe 234? Or 514,789? Or 71,239,874,876? Why should we expect 6,718,563 base pair changes to happen differently from 1 or 2 or 3? Especially when all the changes (i.e. mutations) that we had ever observed directly happen the same way? So, what is the difference between "micro" and "macro"?

When we say evolution happens, it's because we've got plenty of evidence that it does, and that it is pretty close to universal in occurrence. We see mutations happen, which result in changes in the genome. We see that the fundamental difference between organisms (no matter how distant they are taxonomically) is just differences in the genome. That's one sliver of evidence that we use to support our theory.

Without something like that, we evolutionists wouldn't believe it. But, without anything even close to that, we theists believe in God. Can't you see the difference?


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 11:58 AM 1071 has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 266 of 326 (463975)
04-22-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by bluegenes
04-22-2008 12:18 PM


Re: defining faith
bluegenes writes:

but if you really were "antiLIE", you wouldn't be one of these.


anti-LIE means I am against LIES. In other words, I am for the never ending quest for truth.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 12:18 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Taz, posted 04-22-2008 12:31 PM 1071 has not yet responded
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 12:43 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1186 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 267 of 326 (463976)
04-22-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by 1071
04-22-2008 12:27 PM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

anti-LIE means I am against LIES. In other words, I am for the never ending quest for truth.


Good, then you can start by telling your fellow christians to stop lying all the time. Hint: look at the Rover trial fiasco.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 12:27 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 268 of 326 (463977)
04-22-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by 1071
04-22-2008 12:17 PM


Re: defining faith
Incorrect. My definition was of FAITH. the Thread is "Equating science with faith" ... you said it is "equate objective evidence with subjective faith" If one is to try and point out how Evolution and Creation both use faith, we have to have a clear understanding of what 'biblical' faith is. I was difining the biblical translation of FAITH

Which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Again, we are discussing the fact that certain individuals see the need to equate science, that is, a system of modeling the observable Universe based on objective evidence, with faith, which is defined as a subjective belief that is not based on objective evidence.

Your biblical translation of faith is irrelevant to such a discussion.

We've been over this in this thread already. ICANT tried to use the same damned definition of faith that you are propoosing. It was pointed out then as I'm pointing out now that your definition of faith is not a relevant or useful definition for this discussion.

Faith, as definied in the dictionary, is a belief not based on objective evidence.

Your flowery Biblical definition of faith as the "evidence of things unseen" is not accurate, or relevant. Your definition could just as easily be used to decribe belief in air, since we cannot see it. The Biblical definition as you've presented it is not useful or relevant.

The dictionary definition of faith as a belief not based on proof is both useful and relevant.

Let me put it this way: no discussion will progress in this thread using the definition you've extracted from your book of mythology. You and ICANT will be the only two people willing to accept that definition, and the remainder of the thread will be taken up with posts like these where we discuss the definition of faith rather than how some people try to equate faith with science.

The definition that has been used even in the OP for the word "faith" is the definition found in the dictionary: a belief not based on objective evidence. Either use that defintion or stop participating in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 12:17 PM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 12:40 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 269 of 326 (463980)
04-22-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Rahvin
04-22-2008 12:32 PM


Re: defining faith
taz writes:

Good, then you can start by telling your fellow christians to stop lying all the time. Hint: look at the Rover trial fiasco.

LOL... I agree about neo-christians lying, and I am against that. I am not that kind of a "christian". I follow reformed theology and reprobation

You guys obviously can not handle my comments, so I will no longer be posting on this thread.

Rahvin writes:

Your biblical translation of faith is irrelevant to such a discussion.


I digress, if this be the case, I do not belong on this thread.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:32 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 270 of 326 (463981)
04-22-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by 1071
04-22-2008 12:27 PM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

anti-LIE means I am against LIES. In other words, I am for the never ending quest for truth.

Good. That means you don't have a religion, then. You can examine the evidence for large scale historical evolution without bias. And if you do that, you'll realise that what modern biologists think is very much science.

You claim the opposite in a post above, which means that you can't have looked at the evidence yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 12:27 PM 1071 has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018