|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
See definintion in jar's reply.
I have a bone to pick with you ned, why in your avatar are you not smiling???? Did you think it would look "Hip" or "cool" if you put on a face like Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry????? lol just kidding The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it. -Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I've said it before, I believe you rest your trust in the evidence. You seem to base everything on belief and not on evidence. When you couple that with you not understanding the scientific method it makes communication difficult. The whole point of the scientific method is to take trust out of the process. In the real world, you do not trust results. Instead, they mustbe replicated. And they have to be replicated by others, not just the same team. Instead of trust everything is based on verification. No faith, no trust. You pulled Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. from somewhere, most likely some dictionary. And while that might well be great when it comes some situations it's not applicable, one being the world of science. It's very true when it comes to religion and other things that have no proof or evidence. But it's not true, as I said, in science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
We had a whole thread on my face.
I am going for new pictures by a pro in two weeks. The very sad thing is I think I AM smiling. And my feelings are, again, very hurt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
commike37
Well, first off, you're attempting to put creation on the same ground as evolution, but that doesn't put evolution on a higher level at all. I beg to differ but creation is not on any ground at all.It is only sustainable through belief and has no verifiable criteria that all believers agree upon.Science,evolution included,is completely structured around the verifiable.There are heated debates about the leading edge understandings but the whole endeavour,is,by and large based on concensus.Furthermore experimental results are the same regardless of the beliefs or lack of beliefs of those who are investigating.Evolution is not on a higher ground but it is capable of both verification and more important,falsification. This topic is about believing evolution, not creation. Nonetheless, I've learned that you just can't seem to realize this, so I'll appease you with a response. Yes the topic is about believing evolution however I do perceive that this is being discussed by yourself as a comparison with the notion of belief as practised by religions,though you are free to correct me if I am wrong.This is the reason for my response concerning the bible being also by men.This did seem to also be the center of your arguement as though men in their investigations of nature.
Well if the Bible is open to many different interpretations, then so is processes in nature. Your logic here is self-destructive and contradictory. Unlike the bible we can experiment in science.And the only thing that allows a hypothesis to attain the status of being of value is that its predictions are verified by experiment and that experiment can be done by anyone anywhere and achieve the same results.Science tests and retests and subjects its tests to scrutiny and works because it understands that doubt is vital to accomplishing a coherent overview of nature.
sidelined writes: Who wrote the Bible?...ManWho says that the Bible was written by men inspired by god...Man Well, the second statement offers the explanation to the first, but as for the explanation to the second statment, each man chooses for himself whether to have the faith to believe that God inspired the scriptures. No.Those so inclined choose to believethat the bible has anything of value for them.That god is something of actual existence is not obvious from the writings and that the bible is the greatest book ever written is debateable.Indeed,not everyone thinks that god has any different existence from an imaginary friend out of childhood.I see no point for carrying on a comforting illusion from childhood in exactly the same way that I would not hold to the existence of god.It is not a matter of denial so much as a realization that such things are simply non existent.
Whereas in evolution, each man chooses for himself whether to have faith to believe that man accurately explains our world through evolution Not faith but reasoning. I am sufficiently capable of following the reasoning behind evolution and if I should have doubts I need not ask for verification since I can also investigate to my hearts content should I feel it necessary.That is the beauty of science.Do not believe. Investigate,scrutinize,ask penetrating pertainent questions,But do not assume for one instant that you can charge pell mell into any field without a good background and expect to overturn hundreds of years of study by thousands of people in hundreds of different disciplines that are now within the structure of evolutionary theory.From physics and chemistry through microbiology and paleontology to medicine and neurology and numerous other disciplines. The key to interpreting the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit. So man must have faith that the Holy Spirit will show him the truth in Scripture In other words you must convince yourself that such exists in order to see it exists which is not a rational conclusion since this precludes questioning that such is correct. You may claim that such is truthful but it can be shown that there are other faiths where no holy spirit is discussed and these people are just as convinced of the validity of their faith.Such an arguement is not convincing and is fraught with deception as far as I can see.
sidelined writes: Who worships a god in righteous fear of punishment for not doing so and calls it love? Actually, this is a misguided statement. The NT focuses specifically on living by grace, not by the law. This is debatable even within the context of the NT here
Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. It appears Jesus is contradicting your assertion.
Actually, man puts faith in God. That He was behind the Bible, not man. That He will not lead him astray. Men are capable of deceit and are capable of deluding themselves. They can be subject to emotional trauma and not think straight due this.Men wrote the bible and and the bible is not special. It is one more myth among the others and as such holds no more rationality than another. That men {and women} find answers to their situations that they consider acceptable is by no means a verifcation of its status.It is difficult to deal with things like loss of parents,your parner, friends and "the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to".That we turn to these things makes them human endeavors not divine ones.That some of us do not need them in the least is also posible and ,in my case,just how it is. This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-17-2005 23:02 AM A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?' This raised his doubts to such a pitch He fell distracted in the ditch Not knowing how to run.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That point aside, however, in religion people ultimately put their faith in God. In evolution people ultimately put their faith in man. I'd say that the existence of the people - for instance, the Catholic church - who put their faith in God but believe that evolution is accurate disproves this statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
If it's any comfort - you've always looked like you are smiling to me. I suspect like me - you mouth doesn't do big clown smiles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
You are blessed with a very versatile face, Ned.
Joy:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This is all off topic Sylas! You should know better.
If this continues I might have to ban you to whereever WT went.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
The Catholic church is trying to change their views so evolution is compatible with God. They still want to have faith in God, but by trying to make the Bible "fit" with evolution, they also put their faith in man. Just like it's possible to doubt evolution, it's possible to doubt God (and thus make him compatible with evolution)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the Catholic church would argue that it's you who puts your faith in man; specifically, in yourself and your own ability to interpret the Bible.
Of course, to me, you're both right - each of you puts your faith in the ideas of men. I, on the other hand, live without faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: So you would say that you do not apply trust to the evidence? Rather observing and not really having an opinion? I don't know, it seems plain enough to me. Maybe this has gone far enough. The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it. -Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Sorry Ned, but remember Clint Eastwood is extremely cool!!!!!
The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it. -Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Logically if other interpretations of processes in nature are false, then other interpretations of the Bible are false. Regardless, though, the aforementioned statement is not based off of my logic, but yours. This makes no sense, despite your claim to logic. Are you saying that because some interpretations are wrong that all interpretations are wrong?
That point aside, however, in religion people ultimately put their faith in God. In evolution people ultimately put their faith in man. I also put my faith (loose, YEC definition) in man when crossing bridges or flying airplanes. Is there a problem with this? Shall I stop crossing bridges? Or is God signing off on bridges these days? Do you not see where your own logic takes you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
Well, I must be honest to say that I'm ambivalent towards Catholicism (maybe because I'm Lutheran). When you start relying on yourself to interpret the Bible, and not the Holy Spirit, you put less of your faith in God and more in man (specifically yourself). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say religion should ultimately put their faith in God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
I also put my faith (loose, YEC definition) in man when crossing bridges or flying airplanes.
Well, I don't take too kindly to your stereotyping of faith, but putting that aside, there have been times when bridges have collapsed and when planes have crashed (TWA Flight 800, anyone). Although man makes bridges and airplanes as secure as possible, the situation can still take a turn for the worse. Likewise, one day some catastrophic anomaly in evolution may one day kill the theory. The history of mankind shows that nothing is set in stone.
This makes no sense, despite your claim to logic. Are you saying that because some interpretations are wrong that all interpretations are wrong?
I'm saying that if alternatives to evolution can be disproved, then so can alternative views of the Bible. It's a two-way street here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024