Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

Sure, that could happen. However, until it does the ToE is the scientific explanation for the nature of life on earth; it's history and current diversity.This is what we have and this is what should be taught in science classrooms. That is how it works. The current consensus is taught. There is no even vaguely competitive idea.

heh Likewise, one day some catastrophic anomaly in astronomy may one day kill life on this planet. The geological history of the world shows that nothing is set in stone ... or is that stones?It certainly ended the debate between creationist and evolutionist dinosaurs ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This is what I had in mind in regard to the definition of faith I offered above (see message #76):"When they [scientists] are confronted with a prima facie powerful and undismissable objection to natural science . . . they are driven to reason as follows: I cannot yet see how to refute this objection, or overcome this difficulty, but since I cannot imagine how anything other than natural selection could be the cause of the effects, I will have to assume that the objection is spurious . . ."Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"--page 47.

Don't get me started with the problems of dating methods. Or on the "bad" dates that were thrown out. Or how there should've been more salt water in the Earth given an evolutionary timeframe. etc.The debate is far from over.

If they were thrown out, how do you know about them? Are you the guy that empties the trash cans at Radio-Dating Shack?

Good one!

Oh dear not the salt in the sea line - I thought that had been added to the "arguements that creationists shouldn't use" list?You really want to stop repeating what you see on creationist sites like you've actually looked at the issue.

To continue what Dennett wrote:"Before anyone jumps on this and pronounces that I have just conceded that Darwinism is just as much unprovable faith as natural religion, it should be borne in mind that there is a fundamental difference: having decreed their allegiance to natural selection these scientists have taken on the burden os showing how the difficulties with their view could be overcome, and, time and time again, they have suceeded in the challenge...."I would add that the position Dennett describes is in fact reasonable. If a strong theory encounters difficulties it should not be automatically rejected. It may be supplanted by a better theory that has fewer problems - but unless the problems really are insuperable it would be foolish to give up on something that works very well in many cases. In fact we know that at least one of QM and GR is not entirely correct - they cannot be reconciled. But both work well in their domains and until an alternative theory is available they are still used. And of course Newtonian Mechanics - although supplanted by Relativity - is still used in many situations.

I agree it's reasonable. I'm just wondering if it can be called "faith," as in the definition I offered.

Not here, where it would be off-topic, but I will be happy to discuss this at
{{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}}.It will be interesting to see if you can do what no other YEC has done yet: explain the correlations.

All I'm saying is that your claim is debatable. I didn't want to get into specifics, but whenever I don't get into specifics, I'm called for a lack of evidence. When I give some examples for support, I'm called for being off-topic. The point of those examples isn't to debate dating, it's to establish the potential for dating to be debateable.

I'm just calling up some examples to show that dating is debatable. You didn't cover the other examples, you just covered that one to nitpick. In that post, I was trying to establish that the dating claim was debatable. On a more general note, I'm trying to imply that evolution requires putting your faith in man (and there's a great philosophical debate over whether the nature of man is good or evil).There was once a foreign exchange student who was excellent at debate at our school. English was his 4th or 5th language, but once at the beginning of his speech, he explained that English was his 4th or 5th language and then corrected every pronounciation error of the previous speaker. But then, after that, he actually attacked what the previous speaker said.The lesson being here is that you shouldn't post just to nitpick and just look at the mistake in one section of my post, while ignoring the general message put forth in the rest of my post.

go ahead and try at the link given if you think you have an argument. I'm sure Ned will monitor it (he has so far) and he is pretty easy on letting you introduce concepts, as long as you keep to the point of showing how the correlations can all come out the same ...

If you wish to comment on it then it is fair to call for specifics. This is a big enough area that it should be in a separate thread so restricting the topic here is reasonable.You have been given one of many threads to discuss the dating issues. If you continue to comment but don't back those up you are in violation of the forum guidelines. You also begining to look like you are bluffing.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 00:36 AM

Is it really important ? It certainly isn't the same sort of faith that creationismm of any sort requires - even ID. That is what the whole "evolution requires faith" argument is about - the assertion that it requires the same unreasonable faith as creationism. I can't even think of any example of religious faith in general that would be as reasonable.