|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've asked what direct observations are used ... And you have been told that we observe the evidence for evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
but what specific observances are you referring to? Observations of morphology, developmental biology, paleontology, genetics, biogeography, behavioral ecology, plus, of course, being able to watch evolution happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 ... Experiments were never "always necessary". Science has never worked like that.
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) No-one says that you can't directly observe it. They say that you can't directly observe all the evolution that has ever happened. The fossil record is indeed an important source of evidence for evolution. The gaps in it that creationists have taught you to complain about are, of course, not evidence against it, since the theory of evolution does not predict that there should be no gaps in the fossil record.
Also, why is it perfectly acceptable for science to have beliefs in things they cannot see based on indirect observations, yet creationists cannot? Because there are no observations that support creationism.
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. Yeah, it's like saying: "I can use arithmetic to prove that two and two is four, but you can't use it to prove that two plus two is five." Well, you can't. This is because two and two is actually four. The same methods would be open to someone maintaining that 2 + 2 = 5 as to someone maintaining that 2 + 2 = 4, but the use of these same methods would only prove one of them right. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There is a clear cut answer. Science was NEVER restricted to experiments. Experiments are just a way of generating observations - a very good way of doing so - but it is observation that is important. Newton extrapolated from his experiments relating to gravity, to using gravity to explain planetary motion. But all our information on planetary motion comes from observation, not experiment.
quote: You are confusing things. Bacterial evolution can be reproduced in a laboratory (but even there creationists will argue that the observation isn't direct enough !). Other aspects of evolution obviously cannot. There's no contrradiction there. The fossil evidence DOES provide strong evidence for evolution (although there is plenty more from living organisms). To mention just one example, the discovery of Tiktaalik. Evolution predicted that such a creature should have existed. Geology indicated where there was a good chance to find it. They went and looked - and it was there. While that is an especially impressive example, we are still discovering more intermediate fossils. There will probably always be gaps - there are limits to the fossil record - but we can be confident that the gaps will be smaller than they are now.
quote: The answer is simple. Creationists do NOT use the same tool. Nobody is preventing them from using it. Except themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Still, I'd be willing to bet that the Pope has a larger congregation than you do.
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. 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. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You just don't get it, do you ? Nobody is saying that it can't be used in principle.
quote: Are you asking why the evidence happens to favour evolution ? Or are you still going on about some imaginary double-standard ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: OK. There is no such double standard. Is this the third or fourth time I've had to tell you that ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024