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 6:36 PM
293 online now:
dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin), Tangle, xongsmith (5 members, 288 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,008 Year: 8,831/29,783 Month: 1,078/1,977 Week: 216/380 Day: 49/51 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 286 of 326 (464263)
04-24-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by seekingthetruth
04-24-2008 1:10 PM


To both ANTI and seek
I fail to see what macro v. micro has to do with the topic of this thread.

That said, why don't you both join me when my new thread gets promoted?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by seekingthetruth, posted 04-24-2008 1:10 PM seekingthetruth has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 287 of 326 (464267)
04-24-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Vacate
04-24-2008 1:04 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
VACATE writes:

antiLIE writes:
I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.

Yes you are. You where told:

Taz writes:
When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together.

You even posted:

antiLIE writes:
macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale

Yet you still are found to be promoting a strawman when saying rubbish like this:

antiLIE writes:
How is this not crock to duck ideology?

For a croc to turn into a duck, or the sudden appearance of feathers you are leaving out the "time" factor of macroevolution and the compounded effects of microevolution. This is a misuse of the word and a total setup to agrue a strawman.

This RED HERRING is starting to rot... I AM NOT SAYING that it is NOT LONG TERM!!! Where Are you getting this??? You show me where I have used this term out of context. you keep repeating this garbage about a word and have gone WAY off topic. I am NOT misusing this word... would you prefer that I say MACRO-BILLIONSOFYEARS-EVOLUTION?

Okay... lol.. I think i felt something snap in the back of my neck... Lets get back on topic..

Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:04 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:39 PM 1071 has responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2402 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 288 of 326 (464269)
04-24-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by 1071
04-24-2008 1:21 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
You show me where I have used this term out of context.

How about right here in your reply to Taz:

antiLIE writes:

I am not the one with the problem with the definition of the word.

How did this come about? When Taz posted:

Taz writes:

You know what science text books meant when they use the word "macroevolution". And yet you continue to use the word to imply a croc morphing into a duck.

You respond:

How is this not crock to duck ideology?

So now you appear to say that you completely agree with Taz when he stated how "macroevolution" and "appearance" are best understood. Instead of simply saying you agree, you continue to further the arguement as if you disagree... so you can yell "red herring"!!

Nice work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 1:21 PM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 1:54 PM Vacate has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 289 of 326 (464272)
04-24-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Vacate
04-24-2008 1:39 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
Vacate writes:

Nice work.

Indeed. So in straw man terms.... we have come to the conclusion that a dinosaur turning in to a bird over millions of years is not macroevolution and requires no faith because terms and definitions do not matter in science. Right?

Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:39 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 2:05 PM 1071 has not yet responded
 Message 292 by teen4christ, posted 04-24-2008 2:10 PM 1071 has not yet responded

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


Message 290 of 326 (464275)
04-24-2008 2:04 PM


Moderator Request
As longtimers here are aware, EvC Forum works very hard at encouraging constructive discussion that actually gets somewhere. We try to avoid allowing discussion to become bogged down in distractions and extraneous issues.

Recently, several threads appear to have become somewhat stalled, this among them. If things don't improve soon I'll be issuing some moderator warnings and then suspensions. Please make it easy to distinguish between perpetrators from perpetratees.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2402 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 291 of 326 (464276)
04-24-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by 1071
04-24-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
So in straw man terms.... we have come to the conclusion that a dinosaur turning in to a bird over millions of years is not macroevolution and requires no faith because terms and definitions do not matter in science. Right?

Maybe you have, I am not sure why you would conclude terms and definitions don't matter however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 1:54 PM 1071 has not yet responded

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 292 of 326 (464277)
04-24-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by 1071
04-24-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
I think I know why other people are frustrated. Let me try to explain.

Technically speaking, dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds. They evolved into something else which evolved into something else which evolved into something else... which evolved into birds.

It's best to think of it in terms of walking. I could start walking from Chicago in a random direction along with a million other people. Each step I take can be considered microevolution. Each step another person takes can be considered microevolution. I might end up in Salt Lake City while someone else might end up in Quebec. Someone could also end up in Miami.

The question is technically speaking did I get from Chicago to Salt Lake City? The answer is technically speaking no I did not get from Chicago to Salt Lake City. I got from somewhere around Salt Lake City to Salt Lake City. Before that, I was somewhere close by. If we rewind time enough, we could probably trace me back to Chicago.

So, the very statement that "dinosaurs turning into a bird" is deceiving in that it implies that dinos literally turned into birds when this was clearly not the case. Some dino populations very slowly gained some new mutations that over lots and lots of time accumulated to give a noticable difference. Eventually, some of these accumulations gave rise to feathers and beaks while most other traits got lost in the passages of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 1:54 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 293 of 326 (464278)
04-24-2008 2:17 PM


So, I'm really confused.

While I understand the discussion on micro/macroevolution that's been going on for a few posts now, I'm wondering what in the name of His Holy Noodliness this has to do with equating science with faith?

Is someone saying that macroevolution is taken on faith? Becasue it's not. It's a logical inference based on the observed smaller-scale changes, and the observed fossil record as well as the genetic and physical structure of modern living creatures all lend significant supporting evidence to macroevolution. There's no faith involved - it's all about evidence, as is all of science.


Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 2:24 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 295 by teen4christ, posted 04-24-2008 2:26 PM Rahvin has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 294 of 326 (464279)
04-24-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Rahvin
04-24-2008 2:17 PM


Is someone saying that macroevolution is taken on faith? Becasue it's not. It's a logical inference based on the observed smaller-scale changes, and the observed fossil record as well as the genetic and physical structure of modern living creatures all lend significant supporting evidence to macroevolution. There's no faith involved - it's all about evidence, as is all of science.

here we go again

Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 2:17 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Admin, posted 04-24-2008 4:25 PM 1071 has not yet responded

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 295 of 326 (464280)
04-24-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Rahvin
04-24-2008 2:17 PM


I think the discussion on micro/macroevolution is relevant to the thread's topic because some people simply don't believe that the evidence points to macroevolution, or the accumulation of enough microevolution to allow a new species to emerge. The question we should be asking these people is can they propose a mechanism that acts as a brick wall to not allow one species to evolve into something else?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 2:17 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 2:31 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 296 of 326 (464281)
04-24-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by teen4christ
04-24-2008 2:26 PM


I think the discussion on micro/macroevolution is relevant to the thread's topic because some people simply don't believe that the evidence points to macroevolution, or the accumulation of enough microevolution to allow a new species to emerge.

But the topic is not related to what people believe. The topic is regarding the insistence that science uses faith. The "oh yeah? you do it too!" argument used by Creationists who honestly beleive that subjective faith with no evidence is equivalent to scientific models based on objective evidence.

Whether some people believe in macroevolution or not is irrelevant. Now, if someone says "macroevolution is accepted on faith, not evidence," that would be on topic, but proving macroevolution would still not be.

The question we should be asking these people is can they propose a mechanism that acts as a brick wall to not allow one species to evolve into something else?

A question I have posed many times in several threads and never received an answer to. But it's not on-topic for this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by teen4christ, posted 04-24-2008 2:26 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

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


Message 297 of 326 (464293)
04-24-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by 1071
04-24-2008 2:24 PM


Moderator Warning
antiLIE writes:

here we go again

Please either begin contributing constructively to the discussion, or stop posting.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 2:24 PM 1071 has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1859 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 298 of 326 (464298)
04-24-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by 1071
04-22-2008 7:20 AM


Re: defining faith
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 problem i have is that when discussing true origin, the assumption that you exist is taken for granted. but existing, being definite, having asked the question.

science is the study of the workings of the things that exist, and how they came to exist in their forms. but ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept in their sciences concerning existing and overlook God. which is argued in definition as well.

sad that accepting faith in anything is impossible for some, who take for granted the faith they do have. its just arrogance really.

science and faith are not equal, as the topic of this thread seems to imply; but all manner of things that exist have a faith. a necessary faith and acceptance of existing before it is even possible to exist. if a seed has no faith in its ability to grow, it would not grow. same as men who did not have faith in their ability to walk, could not walk. even as it IS possible, but by their own denial cannot walk. many times have psychiatrist and the like classes found ways to help people overcome physical illness's that were only because of a mental subconscious issues (refer to fraud's research).

so in discussing origin, all those discussing origin have already accepted there is a now and a before, which is a faith based on their observations. the belief in God is also made in this same way; had Christ not walked on water, healed all manner of disease, nor did the miracles: who would believe?

had not the burning bush spoke to moses, neither would he have believed. nor the slaves who came out of Egypt on Gods promises spoken through moses, and for their belief, were they also delivered.

who has seen the reports of the earths condition? how fast the fish and sea's and the clean waters in the earth turned more and more putrid in so short a time? who is acting? where is the faith in the world of what men and woman see and can understand the dangers? the faith of most men is in their governments or other men. but what good will that do? because not enough act; but point fingers. and when the water turns into disease, and the fish die, and men rape the land of its animals that they might eat, and there will not be enough food; who can men blame? even as the gun is pointed at the brains of all the men of the world they will try to outrun a bullet; and they cannot do it. but act when you see the gun being pointed, and you can outrun the arm of the assailant.

but without faith, you can do nothing. and so then is faith a requirement to exist. or you would not exist in sane mind; so even those who exist have faith in their existence.

so why deny it?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 7:20 AM 1071 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Blue Jay, posted 04-24-2008 5:56 PM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 300 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 6:07 PM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 6:53 PM tesla has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 500 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 299 of 326 (464304)
04-24-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by tesla
04-24-2008 5:12 PM


Re: defining faith
Tesla's back! Where've you been, Tim?

tesla writes:

(refer to fraud's research).

I couldn't pass this up: it's about the funniest fraudian.. I mean, Freudian...slip I've ever seen.

Now, I'll apologize for my off-topic immaturity. I hope Tesla can forgive me for it.

tesla writes:

the problem i have is that when discussing true origin, the assumption that you exist is taken for granted. but existing, being definite, having asked the question.

science is the study of the workings of the things that exist, and how they came to exist in their forms. but ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept in their sciences concerning existing and overlook God. which is argued in definition as well.

If it would make you feel better, from now on, I'll add "if they exist" to anything I mention in my scientific babblings. For instance, instead of saying "humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor," I'll say, "humans, if they exist, evolved from an ape-like ancestor." That's about the only distinction that you can make with the "you don't know that you really exist" argument.

tesla writes:

the belief in God is also made in this same way; had Christ not walked on water, healed all manner of disease, nor did the miracles: who would believe?

had not the burning bush spoke to moses, neither would he have believed.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that belief in Christ is only based on physical evidence? That's not faith, no matter how you mince words. What you are saying here is not the typical creationist line of "science is a religion," but "religion is science."

tesla writes:

sad that accepting faith in anything is impossible for some, who take for granted the faith they do have. its just arrogance really.

Why is it arrogance to believe based on evidence? Why is it arrogance to want evidence at all? Why is it arrogance to expect someone (e.g. God) to be fair in their expectations? Why is it not arrogance to refuse to provide evidence, especially when you have it all up there with you (I'm speaking about God, here)?

I resent being called arrogant for having enough of an open mind to accept that my sensory perceptions are more reliable than the way I feel about them.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by tesla, posted 04-24-2008 5:12 PM tesla has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 300 of 326 (464306)
04-24-2008 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by tesla
04-24-2008 5:12 PM


Re: defining faith
You again? With more word salad and meaningless nonsense as you navel-graze and utterly fail to address anything approaching the topic?

the problem i have is that when discussing true origin, the assumption that you exist is taken for granted. but existing, being definite, having asked the question.

Don't start your "everything that exists is in existence" bullshit. It's not on-topic. it has nothing to do with how some people try to claim that scientfic theories are based on faith just as religion is.

science is the study of the workings of the things that exist, and how they came to exist in their forms. but ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept in their sciences concerning existing and overlook God. which is argued in definition as well.

Most of thatdoesn't even make a lick of sense. Science is the study of the observable Universe. You're right that it "ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept," because personal faith has nothing to do with objective evidence. That's the very point. Scientists are required to leave their faith at the door and rely only on objective evidence when dealing with scientific models. Science "overlooks god" becasue there is no evidence regarding "god."

sad that accepting faith in anything is impossible for some, who take for granted the faith they do have. its just arrogance really.

What faith is used in science?! This has been asked repeatedly throughout this thread, and nobody has provided a reasonable answer. My contention is that there is no faith in science, because science is based entirely on observable, objective evidence and the logical inferences drawn from that evidence, while faith is defined as a belief that is not based on evidence. The two are polar opposites. So how is anyone "taking for granted the faith they do have?" What is arrogance?

science and faith are not equal, as the topic of this thread seems to imply;

If you think the topic of this thread implies that they are equal, you didn't even read the opening post.

but all manner of things that exist have a faith. a necessary faith and acceptance of existing before it is even possible to exist. if a seed has no faith in its ability to grow, it would not grow.

...what? How can a seed have faith?! You're rambling incoherantly again, tesla. I seriosuly doubt your connection to reality - you seem incapable of saying anything that doesn't boil down to a word-salad nonsensical mishmash of vague philisophical opinions and "grand revelations" you think you've stumbled upon but which actually have no relevance to anything.

same as men who did not have faith in their ability to walk, could not walk. even as it IS possible, but by their own denial cannot walk. many times have psychiatrist and the like classes found ways to help people overcome physical illness's that were only because of a mental subconscious issues (refer to fraud's research).

It doesn't require faith to walk. In such cases, the belief not supported by evidence would be that the victims cannot walk.

But this has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with the topic.

so in discussing origin, all those discussing origin have already accepted there is a now and a before, which is a faith based on their observations.

You just contradicted yourself. If a belief is based on observations, it is not faith. Faith is a belief not based on evidence. You cannot have "faith based on observations;" it's an oxymoron.

the belief in God is also made in this same way; had Christ not walked on water, healed all manner of disease, nor did the miracles: who would believe?

had not the burning bush spoke to moses, neither would he have believed. nor the slaves who came out of Egypt on Gods promises spoken through moses, and for their belief, were they also delivered.

If anyone were to actually observe such things as magical talking bushes, those individuals would not require faith - they would have direct observational knowledge. Their beliefs would not be based on faith, but would rather be based on objective evidence.

However, believing that these things actualy happend when the only evidence is a musty old series of mishmashed books is faith - there is no objective evidence showing that they happened at all.

But again, this has nothing to do with science...so what's your point, tesla? Oh, that's right - you don't do well with "points." You just like to ramble on and make long posts of nonsense.

who has seen the reports of the earths condition? how fast the fish and sea's and the clean waters in the earth turned more and more putrid in so short a time? who is acting? where is the faith in the world of what men and woman see and can understand the dangers? the faith of most men is in their governments or other men. but what good will that do? because not enough act; but point fingers. and when the water turns into disease, and the fish die, and men rape the land of its animals that they might eat, and there will not be enough food; who can men blame? even as the gun is pointed at the brains of all the men of the world they will try to outrun a bullet; and they cannot do it. but act when you see the gun being pointed, and you can outrun the arm of the assailant.

but without faith, you can do nothing. and so then is faith a requirement to exist. or you would not exist in sane mind; so even those who exist have faith in their existence.

Again with the nonsense. This is not a place for sermons or even wondering at the state of the world. The topic here is the fact that some people try to claim that science is based on faith just as religion is; a claim that is blatantly false. None of your nonsense even seems to address that, except in a silly roundabout way by claiming that "faith is a requirement to exist."

Faith is not required to exist, tesla. But then, that's still not the topic here, is it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by tesla, posted 04-24-2008 5:12 PM tesla has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018