|
Author
|
Topic: Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 10 of 104 (287932)
02-17-2006 8:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by rgb
02-17-2006 7:40 PM
|
|
Sorry but just NO Faith required at all.
I don't deny the fact that scientists are usually well versed in other disciplines other than their own supposed specialties. I also don't deny the fact that I could be totally out of touch with reality. What I'm saying is that the theory of evolution covers so many disciplines, or rather so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory, that it is very unlikely for any one person or group to be so well versed in all the fields involved to understand completely every new finding and interpretation. And once that happens, a bastardized cross-breed of faith and trust is required to fully acknowledge that the theory is confirmed by genetics, geology, cosmology, etc. It's not a matter that so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory. That's not the case at all. The thing that adds overwhelming weight to the TOE is that every discipline DOES support it. It was well supported with the publication of Origin of the Species. Since then new technologies have been developed. Guess what? They supported the TOE. Since then many new discoveries have been made. Guess what? They supported the TOE. One other thing. In 2000 years not one supporting fact, evidence or technology has come along to support ID or Creationism.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 7:40 PM | | rgb has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 24 of 104 (289234)
02-21-2006 3:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:23 PM
|
|
If you start with the assumption that God created distinct "kinds" of animals, there is no evidence to suggest macroevolutionary changes have occured. That's fine if you are willing to completely ignore all of the evidence and totally give up on the scientific method. But starting with an assumption is but an assurance that you will never find an answer.
Interesting that you mention assumptions and projecting implications in a thread wherein you're trying to convince me that evolutionary theory doesn't require faith. And for the record, I personally am skeptical of many of the claims of both geology and cosmology. I am a YEC after all and certainly don't believe in millions of years and the big bang :-) Well, the YEC position has been totally falsified. There may well be, in fact almost certainly be changes in evolutionary theory over the coming years, but YEC is just plain wrong and can be simply dismissed. It's fine for you to be skeptical, no one would ever ask someone not to be skeptical, but you can forget YEC. It's DAID. The big difference is in how Science is done as opposed to Religion. Religion starts with answers. Science starts with questions. Science does not require Faith, Religion does.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:23 PM | | Garrett has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:56 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 32 of 104 (289254)
02-21-2006 4:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:56 PM
|
|
When you say the YEC position has been falsified, I'm certain you refer to a creationist model that I don't. I don't refer to any model. I simply can say as FACT that the Universe is NOT young. One clear example can be found in this thread.
If religion is based on faith, science is based on assumptions...I say 6 of one half-dozen of the other. You might, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said
The big difference is in how Science is done as opposed to Religion. Religion starts with answers. Science starts with questions. Science does not require Faith, Religion does.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:56 PM | | Garrett has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:16 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 43 of 104 (289272)
02-21-2006 4:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:16 PM
|
|
Did you read the link that I included?
I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those. Fine, present them in one of the dating threads and let's see if that dog hunts. The point is that Science does NOT begin with the conclusion but with questions and observations. Religion starts with the Answers and then selects those evidences that may help support the conclusion and discards those that falsify the conclusion. The whole foundation of science is doubt. Every theory is not just held up for falsification, falsification is encouraged and rewarded. Doubt, not Faith is the base of Science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:16 PM | | Garrett has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 50 of 104 (289283)
02-21-2006 4:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:36 PM
|
|
So you honestly doubt evolution? If not, your statement is meaningless. Really? Let's look at what I said?
The whole foundation of science is doubt. Every theory is not just held up for falsification, falsification is encouraged and rewarded. Doubt, not Faith is the base of Science. Of course the issue of Evolution was doubted, until overwhelming evidence made doubting that Evolution happened pretty close to impossible. As to the process of evolution, what is called the Theory of Evolution, again, certainly there is doubt. One of the biggest areas right now is in the area of pre-Cambrian life, how extensive it was, how varied. Another is the wonderful thing we are learning about the evolution of birds, and of earliy mammals. Again, hell yes, doubt is the basis of science, not faith. Doubt is what leads to advances.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:36 PM | | Garrett has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:47 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 54 of 104 (289292)
02-21-2006 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:47 PM
|
|
nope, you wrong there.
The examples you list draw doubt to specifics, but not to the underlying assumptions. You simply assume that life arose naturally and therefore since animals change..even to new species, that they must change orders and families too. No facts support this stance. No, the examples I gave were not to specifics but rather to the underlying basis of Science. Science is based on doubt. The Scientific Method is based on doubt. The only reason there has ever been any advances in science is because someone questioned. The scientific method is based on doubt. Works are published so that they can be challenged. Even before publication they need to go through peer review, more doubt and challenge. Once published they are tested by the others that must replicate the finding. When errors are found, science changes. It is a doubt based system. Doubt, not Faith is the basis of Science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:47 PM | | Garrett has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 64 of 104 (289383)
02-21-2006 9:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by rgb
02-21-2006 9:03 PM
|
|
Never too late for a reply.
Perhaps that was the case back in the 18th century, but in modern science every field is linked in some way and that they must reinforce each other for them to be valid. Not at all. They do not have to be linked. As you point out, it was entirely possible that one or another of the independent areas of study might have falsified evolution. But guess what? They didn't. Each new technology, each new field of endevour confirmed the TOE.
But would you agree that not all biologists have the kind of mastery over astrophysics, geology, or chemistry as astrophysicists, geologists, or chemists? Doesn't matter. An indepth knowledge may be needed to understand the intricacies of something like physics or biology or cosmology, but the evidence for Evolution is so totally overwhelming that no faith is involved. For example, you mentioned the age of the universe. Simply going out at night, and again ayt mid day, provides more than enough evidence to completely falsify a Young Earth position.
Of course, there have been evidence that supported ID and creationism in the past 2000 years. Perhaps not any legitimate evidence in the last half century or so, but there were plenty before that. I have heard this alleged many times however no one has ever been able to bring any examples forward that withstood even a cursory examination.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by rgb, posted 02-21-2006 9:03 PM | | rgb has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by rgb, posted 02-21-2006 9:43 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 66 of 104 (289389)
02-21-2006 10:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by rgb
02-21-2006 9:43 PM
|
|
some questions.
The bubonic plague was a pretty convincing evidence that the world was governed by supernatural forces. Saint Januarius' blood in the holy vile was overwhelming evidence that, again, everything was governed by supernatural forces. But the most overwhelming evidence for creationism was the bible, which almost everyone believed to be real historical records of the origin of all things. Do you mean that to the people at the time saw those things as evidence for Creationism? If so, then I would certainly agree. And is it possible that we will someday learn something that will totally change our current understanding in biology, geology, cosmology, evolution or any other area? I'd say that's very likely and hope I get to see many more wonders. But none of those will bring back that Old Time Religion.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by rgb, posted 02-21-2006 9:43 PM | | rgb has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by rgb, posted 02-21-2006 11:40 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 68 of 104 (289403)
02-21-2006 11:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by rgb
02-21-2006 11:40 PM
|
|
Re: some questions.
That certainly could be true. But it has nothing to do with the reality. The Universe will still be old.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by rgb, posted 02-21-2006 11:40 PM | | rgb has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 72 of 104 (289543)
02-22-2006 11:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by rgb
02-22-2006 2:51 AM
|
|
When push comes to horrendous torture?
That certainly could be true. But it has nothing to do with the reality. The Universe will still be old. to which blueredwhite responded:
While truth may be seperate from the majority belief, and you can either agree or disagree with this statement... I don't feel like going too deep into this right now, we cannot simply ignore the human factor in this. When push comes to horrendous torture, even you are going to admit that the earth was in fact flat. For me it would not take horrendous torture, probably more like mild discomfort. But what does that have to do with the topic of this thread beyond supporting the initial assertion that science in general and evolution in particular are not faith based while religion is? Science is not democratic. It does not take a poll and decide which theories are most popular. In fact it is exactly the opposite. Science is based on doubt, not faith. For a theory to gain acceptance, it must first pass the test of continuing doubt. This is true of every scientific theory. And frankly, there have been few theories put forward in science that have been challenged more than the TOE or withstood as much doubt.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by rgb, posted 02-22-2006 2:51 AM | | rgb has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 84 of 104 (397744)
04-27-2007 3:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Garrett
04-27-2007 3:12 PM
|
|
The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. Only by an act of "Willful Ignorance" which is why the Christian Cult of Ignorance supports Biblical Creationism. The Biblical Creationist position though is simple a new, primarily American aberration of Christianity. It is not a matter of interpretation, rather Biblical Creationism depends almost entirely on suppressing evidence. The origin of Creationism is:
The roots of “Creationism” are to be found in the Seventh Day Adventist Church following the visions and teaching of Ellen White. From about 1900 the Adventist George McCready Price, who had a year of college science teaching, began to write books like The New Geology and Evolutionary Geology, in which he argued all geology was wrong and that all strata were laid down in Noah’s Flood. His works had a limited impact in the USA, but paved the way for the future. In the fifties a hydraulics engineer (Henry Morris) and a theologian (John Whitcomb) were concerned on how evangelicals were beginning to accept evolution and collaborated to write The Genesis Flood, (1961). In part, this was an un-acknowledged re-hash of McCready Price. It was this book and the work of Henry Morris that gave rise to the new “Creationism”. At first it grew slowly but after 1970 took off, resulting in a plethora of creationist organisations throughout the world, and the many attempts to change science teaching. from this source. In the words of the Clergy Letter Project, an open letter endorsed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:12 PM | | Garrett has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:40 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 87 of 104 (397752)
04-27-2007 4:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Garrett
04-27-2007 3:40 PM
|
|
Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Despite your assertion that the Biblical Creationist position isn't new, it's been the major position throughout the entire history of Christianity. In fact that's the position of the Bible itself..hence the name Biblical Creationism..LOL. That of course is simply nonsense. It was certainly true before all the evidence we have discovered in the last 400 years or so, simply as a default position. However, since the 1600s or so Christianity has known and acknowledged that the tales in Genesis are but myth.
THE ROOTS OF CREATIONISM It is often alleged that until the rise of geology in the 18th century all Christians believed in a six day creation and only “stretched Genesis like an elastic band” to placate geologists. In fact, the early church were divided on the issue, though the majority of Reformers accepted a six-day creation, as there was no evidence otherwise. However from 1600 most theologians did not affirm a literal Genesis preferring to accept that God created first Chaos and then re-ordered creation in six days (but varied on the day’s duration). From 1770 when geological evidence for a vast age was widely held, the opposition from the church was minimal and it was only after 1817 that some British Christians argued for literalism. By 1860 the number of literalist Christian writers scarcely tops double figures. From my research I found that 10-20 % of Anglican clergy were literalist in 1820-30, I found none after 1860 to 1970, except for W.H. Griffith Thomas in 1919, and in the noughties the figure is 10%. From this already referenced source. It is only those who are willfully ignorant that still think the Biblical Tales are anything more than poetic and allegorical. For a contemporary view of Creation, I suggest you study A Catechism of Creation which says:
Are the creation stories in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, meant to convey how God originated the universe? These majestic stories should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation. “Creation” in Holy Scripture refers to and describes the relationship between God and all God’s wonderful works. Biblical Creationism is simply a Christian Cult of Ignorance, and also a very effective way for the conmen to get gullible Christians to send them money.
Beyond this, most early scientists were creationists who believed that God created the world with laws of order. This is the whole reason that Science took off in the Western world. We assumed that because God made things ordered, we could study the order and learn from it. The East had alchemy,the West chemistry....and we owe it to Biblical Creationism. That of course is the old trick of misdirection and palming the pea. The reason science took off is that unlike Biblical Creationism, science actually worked and produced results. It is also a bunch of nonsense and frankly, dishonest statements; for example both the East and West had alchemy and both the East and West developed Science. There could be no science without the knowledge and inventions of the Islamic World as well as the Pagan World. To claim that Christianity played anything more than a bit part, often only as a hinderer and obstacle to be overcome, is to misrepresent the role Christianity played.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:40 PM | | Garrett has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:15 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 88 of 104 (397754)
04-27-2007 4:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Coragyps
04-27-2007 3:53 PM
|
|
Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Don't forget the important things like pasta and ice cream.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Coragyps, posted 04-27-2007 3:53 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 91 of 104 (397760)
04-27-2007 4:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:15 PM
|
|
Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? All of Christianity outside the Christian Cult of Ignorance. In fact, I provided you with a link to an open letter signed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy that support the Teaching of the TOE and oppose Biblical Creationism.
No church I've ever gone to beleives this. I don't doubt that. The Christian Cult of Ignorance is big in the US and primarily led by Christian Pastors.
You suggest I study A Catechism of Creation for a contemporary view of creation? LOL, from what perspective. From the perspective of someone searching for truth, of course.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:15 PM | | Garrett has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 95 of 104 (397788)
04-27-2007 5:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:38 PM
|
|
Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
LOL There are two major differences between our posts. A major one is that YEC is simply wrong, false, a lie. That is FACT. It really is that simple. Second, there is NO Creation Science. Not one of the people you mention has ever contributed anything in the realm of Science that is based on the Bible. The Bible has NEVER added anything to man's scientific knowledge or understanding. If you can present a single scientific advance, a single new scientific insight, that has come from the Bible, we will be happy to consider it. YEC is just false. It is a lie. Teaching it is simply encouraging ignorance and is, in fact, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, an act of Hubris and a denial of God's gift of a mind capable of Critical Thought.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. The fact that over 10,000 US Clergy signed off on the TOE doesn't support your statement that "Christianity" has abandonded the Genesis account. Of course I did not assert that Christianity abandoned the Genesis myths. I even provided you a link to explain the significance of those tales. But they are NOT of scientific or historical merit. From both scientific and historical perspective, they are simply wrong, false, incorrect, flawed, irrelevant. That they are literally true can only be maintained by an act of willful ignorance. The current Christian Cult of Ignorance does in fact still hold the view that they are literally and factually correct. I acknowledge that in much of the US Christian Communion, Ignorance is King and Ignorance is King in all churches that support ID, Biblical Creationism and YEC positions.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM | | Garrett has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2