Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why 'evolutionism' is a religion
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 45 (2177)
01-15-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
01-14-2002 1:31 PM


[QUOTE]John Paul:
I have patience. But in the absence of such experimentation all you have is faith that someday such evidentiary support will come. And with that faith the belief it will substantiate your (evolutionists') claims.
[/B][/QUOTE]
First of all, I don't know any Biologist, scientist, or educated person who calls themselves an "evolutionist". That is a term which is preferred by and used by creationists to try to portray Creationism and a particular scientific theory of Biology as somehow two sides of the same coin. This is, of course, a false and misleading dualistic portrayal.
If you are equating the kind of faith that I have in the evidence for common descent, for example, with your religious faith, then yours is a very strange religious faith.
Your faith is based upon evidence found in nature rather than any supernatural, holy, sacred, or otherwise religious idea. You look at new evidence from nature all the time to see if your faith is to be rejected or strengthened, because with every new discovery, it might go either way. You make predictions about what we will find in nature, and if the predictions fail, then your faith is weakened.
Is this how you would describe your faith, John Paul?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 1:31 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 1:41 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 45 (2179)
01-15-2002 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Paul
01-15-2002 8:25 AM


quote:
We can observe God through God's creation.
No, that would be an inference, not an observation.
God has never been observed.
quote:
Actually there are so many gaps any running back could score on any play from anywhere on the field. Close the gaps and then get back to me and I will change my position on the ToE being a religion.
So, because we do not have perfect knowledge, Genesis/ID is correct? How can we argue with logic like that?
quote:
However if you must know, Creationists use the same evidence. We just have different inferences based on our diferent biases.
Please tell me why, according to the website you sent me to, humans and apes are not the same "kind", but my tabby cat and a Bengal tiger are the same "kind".
Please tell me why flowering plants, including trees and grasses, are only found in later geologic layers. Did they all run for high ground during the flood?
You can say that you infer the evidence "differently", and that would be true. It would also be true that these inferences are not scientific because they assume that the Biblical version of natural history is correct even before any observations are made.
Science makes no such assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 8:25 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 1:52 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 45 (2362)
01-17-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John Paul
01-15-2002 1:41 PM


quote:
The only thing misleading is evolutionists' portrayal of the Creation model of biological evolution.
So, provide a detailed "Creation Model of Biological Evolution" so we will stop "misrepresenting" it. If you know enough about it to know we are misrepresenting it, then you should have no trouble producing it.
quote:
Allison: Your faith is based upon evidence found in nature rather than any supernatural, holy, sacred, or otherwise religious idea. You look at new evidence from nature all the time to see if your faith is to be rejected or strengthened, because with every new discovery, it might go either way. You make predictions about what we will find in nature, and if the predictions fail, then your faith is weakened.
quote:
John Paul:Are you telling me what my faith is?
No.
I am making a point that the word "faith" has different meanings, even though you seem to have unilaterally decided that it has only one. This seems rather desperate, this getting "cute" with definitions.
You said "faith is faith", and I simply described the kind of "faith" that I put in scientific theories in such a way that would show you that, when applied to religious "faith", it wasn't the same kind of thing at all.
quote:
I see evidence for God all around me and yes if someday we were to prove (or at least get unrefutable evidence for) that the big-bang theory, nebula hypothesis, abiogenesis and the ToE are ALL indicative of reality, Iwould change the way I perceived God & Scripture (that is if I am still alive).
There is no such thing as "irrefutable evidence" in science, so you have made science's goal impossible to reach.
Also, you have been terribly inconsistent the entire time you have been here. Sometimes you say that the only problem Creationists have is with the origin of life (Abiogenesis), and then you go on for a while about ID, even though your favorite reference, Behe, accepts evolution, that there wasn't a Flood, the universe is billions of years old, etc. At other times, you argue for the Flood, that evolution doesn't happen, etc.
Do you accept the evidence which supports the Germ Theory of Disease?
The reason I ask is that, in the Bible, either God or evil spirits cause disease, not microorganisms. If you are to remain consistent (which you haven't been), it seems that you must reject the Germ Theory of Disease.
I mean, the only reasons you have really given to why you object to the science that you do are religious, or personal incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 1:41 PM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 45 (33838)
03-07-2003 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:19 AM


Actually, faith is not required to accept any scientific theory; only evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:19 AM ????? has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024