Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 91 of 326 (460593)
03-16-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
03-16-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Re-Faith
And by the way you have more faith in your science than I do in my God. Your science does require faith and you are too blind to see it.
In what way does science require faith?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 03-16-2008 8:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 11:11 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 92 of 326 (460594)
03-16-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
03-16-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
You do not understand faith.
You don't understand rational thought. You're the one who believes the widespread acceptance of evolution is the punishment for the widespread acceptance of evolution, remember? You're the one who accuses everyone who disagrees with you of being an "atheist," remember? You're the one that even most Creationists and IDists won't touch, remember?
You're like Fred Phelps - the crazies could bring you out every once in a while to look sane by comparison.
Faith requires an object. In your case the object of your faith is the presuppositions, interpretations and conclusions of evolutionary science.
This isn't about evolution, Ray. It's about science in general. And the only "assumption" of science is that we can observe the Universe around us. Everything else is tentative, but the more evidence for the accuracy of a model, the less tentative it is considered.
But we know evolution is not science but a religion.
It's not, as we've shown in many threads. Thanks for proving my point, Ray. You're yet another one of those who is desperate to say "you do it to!" so that your wacky beliefs can achieve the same validity as scientific theories. Your faith has not a lick of objective evidence - it's based entirely on appeals to tradition, appeals to authority, appeals to personal incredulity, and nothing of substance. You personally don't even have a loose contact with reality. Your idol is a scumsucking moron of a televangelist who likes to bully gullible grandmothers until they send him money.
Your god is the ideas of Atheist "scientists" like Charles Darwin.
Darwin wasn't an atheist, and his personal theology has nothing to do with the objective, observable evidence that is the basis of his theory.
You worship and bow down to these ideas. You have faith that they are correct as noted above.
As stated many times, they are tentatively accepted as highly accurate given the data we posess so far. As science is based on empirical, objective evidence, it is NOT faith, which is defined as "belief without evidence."
If any one does not bow down and recognize your faith you and a gang of other howlers will slander them.
I don't care if you don't accept science, Ray. You can feel free to start a Luddite society and depend on your god for all things for all I care. But this thread is about equating science with faith - a blatantly and obviously false claim. One is defined by evidence. The other is defined by the lack of evidence. It's really quite simple.
Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s; one in microbiology and one in Theology. He is famous for saying that he forsook evolution because he did not have the faith to believe in it anymore.
Appeals to authority and one mans personal incredulity mean absolutely nothing, Ray. Scientific models are based on observable, objective evidence. That means science is the opposite of faith, which is defined as "belief without evidence."
here is no evidence in existence in support of evolution. The emperor is naked.
Says the man who believes the widespread acceptance of evolution is a punishment for the widespread acceptance of evolution. Mountains of evidence exist in support of evolution - its tentativity at this point is considered to be on par with the theory of gravity: both are extremely accurate models of the observable world.
You simply prefer to believe your lunatic televangelist buddy when he proposes a circular argument. That's your concern, and it has nothing to do with reality.
It is evident that your faith, unlike educated persons like Jonathan Wells, is very strong. That is why your faith is blind faith.
I have no faith, Ray. I try very hard to be sure that none of my beliefs are based on faith, but rather are based on objective evidence and tentative logical inference based on that evidence.
Genuine faith is based on evidence, like the observation of design which implies Designer, and not unintelligent process, the same of which only exists in your imagination, hence blind faith.
Faith, by definition, is "belief without evidence." Look it up in the dictionary, Ray. We even did that for you at the start of the thread.
If you had objective, observable evidence, you wouldn't need faith to believe in your deity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-16-2008 7:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 7:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 93 of 326 (460595)
03-16-2008 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
03-16-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Re-Faith
I would like to read the literature that you got this drivel from.
As Percy said, they're widely known explanations from way back when the Church tried to explain the world.
But really, whether anyone has actually held those beliefs isn't the relevant part - it's that such beliefs would be based on faith. We regard them as ridiculous today because science has uncovered the observable, objective evidence to explain these phenomenon.
And by the way you have more faith in your science than I do in my God. Your science does require faith and you are too blind to see it.
Blah blah blah, ICANT. You're proving my point yet again.
FACT: Science involves tentatively held logical inference based on objective, observable evidence. Scientific models are testable by further observations and objective evidence.
FACT: Faith is defined as "belief without evidence." Examples would be belief in fairies, belief in an imaginary friend, or belief in a deity (so long as no objective evidence exists for any of these).
By definition, if objective evidence is the basis for a belief, it is not faith!
I have been asking for that evidence for a year and have been given "ZERO" I have been given many assertions but assertions are not evidence. They are only someone's opinion.
You've been given a very large amount of evidence for scientific models since you started here, ICANT. Your inability to understand them is irrelevant.
You want to convince me or anybody else produce the evidence that proves you do not take Origins on Faith. It is all based on FAITH as per your definition of faith. Re: defining faith (Message 7)
"2. belief that is not based on proof:"
We are not going to discuss cosmology again you and I, ICANT. Your brick wall of ignorance has bludgeoned my head enogh already. Anyone can look back at those previous threads and see the evidence that was presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 03-16-2008 8:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 12:20 PM Rahvin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 94 of 326 (460619)
03-17-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluescat48
03-16-2008 10:14 PM


Re-Faith
Please, no replies to this message, unless you can generalize away from the cosmological topic. --Admin
Hi bluescat48,
bluescat48 writes:
In what way does science require faith?
Good question.
Anything at and everything prior to T=10-43 has to be believed by faith.
I have learned some things over the past year even though no one thinks I have.
One of the things I have learned is:
Here
Son Goku says,
Now for the umpteenth time, the singularity is not a physical object.
If the singularity is a mathematical equation and not physical then it can not be the universe.
Another of the things I have learned is:
Here Son Goku says,
13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea.
This pea sized universe is at T=10-43.
The only way that universe can be there is to believe it is there by "FAITH" there is no evidence for it being there.
From the point the Big Bang Theory takes over and begins to describe what took place there is evidence, some of which is questioned.
Similar evidence is presented in the Bible.
God Bless,
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 03-16-2008 10:14 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2008 11:52 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 99 by Admin, posted 03-17-2008 1:24 PM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 95 of 326 (460624)
03-17-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
03-17-2008 11:11 AM


Re: Re-Faith
bluescat48 writes:
quote:
In what way does science require faith?
Good question.
Anything at and everything prior to T=10-43 has to be believed by faith.
Not quite, ICANT. You should have learned this in the other threads, but of course you didn't. We don't know much, but we have very good evidence suggesting the Unvierse was more hot, more dense, and the physical dimensions were "smaller" than they are at later times.
We don't know anything mroe than that with any degree of certainty, but we've never claimed to, either. Your statement is a strawman.
I have learned some things over the past year even though no one thinks I have.
Yes, you've become quite proficient at repeating the same misunderstandings and ignornace no matter how many times something is explained to you. Congratulations on that.
One of the things I have learned is:
Here
Son Goku says,
quote:
Now for the umpteenth time, the singularity is not a physical object.
If the singularity is a mathematical equation and not physical then it can not be the universe.
For the love of...! Nobody said the Universe is a singularity! All you've done is bastardized your original misunderstanding into an even worse misunderstanding of what a singularity is!
Another of the things I have learned is:
Here Son Goku says,
quote:
13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea.
This pea sized universe is at T=10-43.
The only way that universe can be there is to believe it is there by "FAITH" there is no evidence for it being there.
There is a lot of evidence that the Universe was smaller as we go fartehr back in time. We pointed it out to you. You failed to comprehend. Everyone else understood. The belief that the Universe was smaller, more dense, and hotter as you go farther back in time is supported by the observable, objective evidence of the redshift of distant galaxies, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and a whole host of other things you don't understand.
From the point the Big Bang Theory takes over and begins to describe what took place there is evidence, some of which is questioned.
Not seriously questioned by a significant number of scientists. You question it, but you still don't understand what a singularity is, so your opinion is fairly worthless.
Similar evidence is presented in the Bible.
No evidence is presented in the Bible. A very distantly similar statement is made in the Bible, but that's certainly not evidence of anything. And the statement is even so distantly connected that it's like saying "the circle of the Earth" accurately describes the actual shape of the planet.
But once again: you haven't provided any reason to suggest that science is based on faith. You're just clumsily trying to equate the two so that you can gain some sort of validation from having your evidence-less beliefs put on the same level as the evidence-based models of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 11:11 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 96 of 326 (460627)
03-17-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rahvin
03-16-2008 10:26 PM


Re: Re-Faith
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
As Percy said, they're widely known explanations from way back when the Church tried to explain the world.
I have studied Church History and I find no point that those things were taught in the Church History I have studied. I did not study Catholic Church History so I don't know what they taught.
I am aware that many pagan religions have taught many things in the past, but you can't blame that on God. Then again I guess you could as you don't believe He exists.
I found an article "Why Not Angels by Donald E. Simanek, February, 2006 that talks about those things. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/angels.htm
I found this when I googled angels pushing the planets around.
http://www.12x30.net/angel.html
Speculation about Archangels
But it does not mention angels pushing the planets around only that the Arch in Archangel talked of the planets moving in an arch.
When I googled the angels holding things down as gravity I got nothing.
Rahvin writes:
FACT: Science involves tentatively held logical inference based on objective, observable evidence. Scientific models are testable by further observations and objective evidence.
I will agree there are many things that Science has done. There are many things that are believed because of tentative evidence presented by Science. I even believe that there are Scientific facts that will never be refuted. But that is just my belief.
True Science is a marvelous thing and has contributed much to society in the past. Especially in the past 30 or 40 years and as knowledge increased it is speeding up the things that can be accomplished. These are not in question and have never been in question as far as I am concerned.
What I question is the blind faith in the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
As per your definition of faith. Because there is no observable, objective, or repeatable evidence for either.
Rahvin writes:
FACT: Faith is defined as "belief without evidence.
Rahvin writes:
You've been given a very large amount of evidence for scientific models since you started here,
Scientific models have nothing to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
You and others are exasperated at me because I have asked questions basically about the origin of the universe. Your frustration comes from not having an answer, and not having the honesty to admit that by faith you believe the universe came into existence.
I agree there has been much information asserted, some even cited by Son Goku. I did question many things about the Big Bang Theory and still do. I found many questions about the BBT and asked them here none were refuted. Sylas would have challenged several of the references I cited if he had been here. I found where he did challenge several of them in another thread a couple of years ago.
Rahvin writes:
Anyone can look back at those previous threads and see the evidence that was presented.
You are correct it is all there in black and white so they can go back and see how many assertions were made. They can see how many time you or anyone else quoted an authority as a basis for belief. They can also see how many scientific papers were cited as evidence by you are anyone else.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2008 10:26 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2008 1:47 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 03-17-2008 3:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 104 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 2:14 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 97 of 326 (460628)
03-17-2008 12:27 PM


Re-Faith
Since there is no way to question the Faith required to believe in the origin of the universe I have nothing futher to add to this thread.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by bluegenes, posted 03-17-2008 12:57 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 103 by obvious Child, posted 03-20-2008 5:26 AM ICANT has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 98 of 326 (460629)
03-17-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
03-17-2008 12:27 PM


ICANT writes:
Since there is no way to question the Faith required to believe in the origin of the universe I have nothing futher to add to this thread.
Scientists do not claim to know the origin of the universe. There is no faith required in saying "I don't know". Just honesty, a concept that's foreign to people with a blind faith in any of the ancient creation myths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 12:27 PM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 99 of 326 (460630)
03-17-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
03-17-2008 11:11 AM


Re: Re-Faith
Hi ICANT,
Busy day, I wanted to post this earlier but didn't have time.
If you'd like to begin another thread to further explore your concerns about scientific views about the early universe then please propose a new thread. There is nothing wrong with further discussion of this issue, but you can't keep raising this same issue in threads only peripherally related, so please do not raise this issue in other threads anymore. Limit its discussion to a thread designated for that purpose.
As far as this thread goes, you shouldn't have any trouble finding other examples to make your point about the role of faith in science.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 11:11 AM ICANT has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 100 of 326 (460631)
03-17-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
03-16-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Re-Faith
ICANT writes:
You want to convince me or anybody else produce the evidence that proves you do not take Origins on Faith.
He has produced this evidence many times. So have many others. For an example, try this post, particularly this quote:
Rahvin writes:
We have no idea what state (the universe) was in because our math breaks down into a singularity at (T=0). Beyond this, we really can't say anything with any degree of certainty regarding T=0.
Here's what Rahvin is trying to say: WE DON'T KNOW, DAMN IT! Do you need faith in your own lack of knowledge to not know something? No, we're pretty confident that we don't know this. So, we don't take Origins on faith.
However, while science as a field reserves judgment until evidence saturates the scene, each scientist is an individual, and often holds personal beliefs (which may be based on faith). This does not make his/her/its personal beliefs science, and it doesn't mean science is based on such beliefs.
"Science" does not equal "beliefs of scientists," but equals "the sum total of all knowledge gleaned from empirical studies of available data." Where no data exists, no scientific "beliefs" exist: individuals' guesses, extrapolations, hypotheses and/or predictions may abound, but these do not automatically become "science" because they issued from the lips of a scientist. This is why quotes from individual scientists using the word "design" or believing that we have faith in our results do not constitute a solid argument. This is also why EvC's pro-evolution debaters demand "scientific consensus" whenever such quotes from scientists are provided.
If you want more evidence, try perusing places like TalkOrigins. They provide a very nice overview of some of the good evidence, and even explain why much of it constitutes solid evidence. When you've read some, come back to the science forums to question the evidence, and we'll debate with you and explain why this evidence is solid. However, many of us are busy people and don't have time to devote to special literature searches for your personal inquiries, so don't expect us to do you any personal favors.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 03-16-2008 8:46 PM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 101 of 326 (460632)
03-17-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
03-17-2008 12:20 PM


Re: Re-Faith
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
quote:
As Percy said, they're widely known explanations from way back when the Church tried to explain the world.
I have studied Church History and I find no point that those things were taught in the Church History I have studied. I did not study Catholic Church History so I don't know what they taught.
I am aware that many pagan religions have taught many things in the past, but you can't blame that on God. Then again I guess you could as you don't believe He exists.
This isn't about Christian faith per se, ICANT. It's about faith in general. To my knowledge no Christians have ever had a belief that a sacrifice is necessary to prevent volcanoes from erupting - but that is a belief held by some other religions, and that belief is based on faith. I don't blame anything on your deity - that's awfully hard when I don't believe he exists.
I found an article "Why Not Angels by Donald E. Simanek, February, 2006 that talks about those things. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/angels.htm
I found this when I googled angels pushing the planets around.
http://www.12x30.net/angel.html
Speculation about Archangels
But it does not mention angels pushing the planets around only that the Arch in Archangel talked of the planets moving in an arch.
When I googled the angels holding things down as gravity I got nothing.
My examples were based on hearsay - I've heard them brought up in the past here and there. Whether they are beliefs actually held by people is irrelevant to the point however - they would be beliefs based on faith. Your belief in a literal Genesis account is exactly the same, being based on faith and not on objective, observable evidence.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
FACT: Science involves tentatively held logical inference based on objective, observable evidence. Scientific models are testable by further observations and objective evidence.
I will agree there are many things that Science has done. There are many things that are believed because of tentative evidence presented by Science. I even believe that there are Scientific facts that will never be refuted. But that is just my belief.
And since those beliefs are based on objective evidence, that belief is not based on faith.
True Science is a marvelous thing and has contributed much to society in the past. Especially in the past 30 or 40 years and as knowledge increased it is speeding up the things that can be accomplished. These are not in question and have never been in question as far as I am concerned.
All science is in question. That's the point of tentativity. The degree of tentativity depends on the amount of evidence.
What exactly is this "True Science" you think exists? There is only one scientific method, you know. Do you define "True Science" as "those scientific principles ICANT believes in?"
What I question is the blind faith in the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
There is no blind faith. There is only the most accurate model presently available. You seem to believe a model must be 100% correct, or else it's BS. That's not the way it works, ICANT. We don't have all possible evidence - we aren't omniscient. We work with what we do have available, and make the most accurate model possible, refining it through continuous testing and as new evidence becomes available. Everything is held tentatively, but generalities are far less likely to be inaccurate than the specifics of any given model (that the Universe is expanding is less tentative than the specific rate at which it is expanding, for instance).
We don't have much of a model for the origin of the Universe. We know with a great deal of accuracy the conditions of the Universe from a barest fraction of a second after T=0 onward, but we don't know much at all beyond "it looks like it was hotter, denser and smaller as you get closer to T=0" past that. It's not really a model of origins at all.
The origin of life has several hypotheses, but none have been fully demonstrated yet. Abiogenesis is showing a very large amount of promise, but we don't even have a full process to test yet - nobody says "that's definitely how it happened," rather we say "that sounds like it might be it, let's test it."
As per your definition of faith. Because there is no observable, objective, or repeatable evidence for either.
But you're strawmanning. The Big Bang is not a model of origins at all, and nobody is insisting that abiogenesis is the origin of life on Earth. Both are based on observable, reproducible evidence (though one has not yet been tested fully enough to be considered anything more than a promising hypothesis).
Rahvin writes:
quote:
FACT: Faith is defined as "belief without evidence.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
You've been given a very large amount of evidence for scientific models since you started here,
Scientific models have nothing to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
I thought you just insisted that the Big Bang and abiogenesis (scientific models, though the latter is incomplete) were related to the origin of the Universe and life, repectively? I was the one who told you Big Bang cosmology is not a theory of origins.
You and others are exasperated at me because I have asked questions basically about the origin of the universe. Your frustration comes from not having an answer, and not having the honesty to admit that by faith you believe the universe came into existence.
Our frustration comes from you not comprehending the model despite many attempts. We don't know how the Universe "came into existence." We don't even know if it ever did "come into existence." We know that the Universe is definied as everything that exists, and that it includes the spacial dimensions and time, so that asking what cmae "before" the Universe does not make sense, and we know that the Unvierse does exist. There's no faith involved in those beliefs.
I agree there has been much information asserted, some even cited by Son Goku. I did question many things about the Big Bang Theory and still do. I found many questions about the BBT and asked them here none were refuted. Sylas would have challenged several of the references I cited if he had been here. I found where he did challenge several of them in another thread a couple of years ago.
You didn't even understand the model enough to posit anything troublesome, ICANT. You have a strawman of Big Bang cosmlogy in your head that simply will not budge. We've bludgeoned ourselves against it beyond the point of reason, and yet it's as strong a wall of solid ignorance as ever.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
Anyone can look back at those previous threads and see the evidence that was presented.
You are correct it is all there in black and white so they can go back and see how many assertions were made. They can see how many time you or anyone else quoted an authority as a basis for belief. They can also see how many scientific papers were cited as evidence by you are anyone else.
We were trying to show you what the model is, ICANT. not prove it to you. We brought up the evidence several times, but the real purpose was to help you understand what it even says. You failed to even comprehend that, and so for the most part, the evidence behind it was never even referenced. We can't help you understand the Theory of Gravity if you won't even listen to the basics of the theory - there's no point in bringing up the evidence behind the model when you won't even listen to what the model says first.
And of course, you still have not shown that science is based on faith. You've proven very good at bringing up the cosmology threads where you demonstrated your inability to understand scientific models, but you haven't shown that scientific models are based on faith.
The fact is, scientific models are based on objective, observable evidence. Faith is based on no evidence. The two are not the same, no matter how hard you try to equate the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 12:20 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 102 of 326 (460643)
03-17-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
03-17-2008 12:20 PM


Not Faith
ICANT writes:
What I question is the blind faith in the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
Oh good, ”cause if that’s all you’re questioning this should be easy.
      The Religious Explanation for the Origin of the Universe.
        The Scientific Explanation for the Origin of Life.
          The Religious Explanation for the Origin of Life.
          Not only won’t you admit your own ignorance, you won’t let us admit ours.
          AbE: Sorry, wrote this hours ago but my server wouldn't connect at the time; didn't mean to be redundant.
          Edited by lyx2no, : Apologies.

          Kindly
          ******
          Scared of the dark

          This message is a reply to:
           Message 96 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 12:20 PM ICANT has not replied

          obvious Child
          Member (Idle past 4115 days)
          Posts: 661
          Joined: 08-17-2006


          Message 103 of 326 (460902)
          03-20-2008 5:26 AM
          Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
          03-17-2008 12:27 PM


          Re: Re-Faith
          The difference between creationists and scientists is that scientists don't assume Goddidit when they don't know. I've noticed that you regularly ignore how your arguments are essentially Goddidit. Perhaps you realize just how weak they are.

          This message is a reply to:
           Message 97 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 12:27 PM ICANT has not replied

          teen4christ
          Member (Idle past 5798 days)
          Posts: 238
          Joined: 01-15-2008


          Message 104 of 326 (460934)
          03-20-2008 2:14 PM
          Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
          03-17-2008 12:20 PM


          Re: Re-Faith
          ICANT writes
          quote:
          I found this when I googled angels pushing the planets around.
          http://www.12x30.net/angel.html
          Speculation about Archangels
          But it does not mention angels pushing the planets around only that the Arch in Archangel talked of the planets moving in an arch.
          I don't think you are looking hard enough. Here is something to look at while you're at it.
          Chick.com: Big Daddy?
          I'm particularly interested in one segment of it.
          So, supposedly, Jesus has been holding atoms together so that we may exist.
          quote:
          What I question is the blind faith in the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
          ICANT, I think everyone has been answering this statement of yours several dozen times already. The answer to both origin of univers and origin of life is "we simply don't know". There are educated guesses as well as wild guesses. But when it comes down to it, we simply don't know.
          By saying that anyone claims to know and then point out that that person believes in it by blind faith, you are just using a strawman argument.
          quote:
          Scientific models have nothing to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
          You're right, of course, which is why noone has claimed that we know anything about the origin of life or the origin of the universe. We have a few educated guesses here and there. Yes, we have a few proposed models for the origin of life and the origin of the universe. But those are simply proposed models and chances are they will not survive for long.
          ICANT, are you really trying to be difficult? Despite the fact that many people have said science doesn't know the answers to these questions, you continue to claim that science does claim to know the answers to these questions. Aren't you forgetting the bear false witness thing?
          quote:
          They can also see how many scientific papers were cited as evidence by you are anyone else.
          I don't know if this is intentional or not on your part, but you seem to be trying very hard to equate biblical accounts with scientific papers as if scientific papers refuse to present the data require you to believe in them on faith. The opposite is true, of course. Anything and everything presented in scientific papers have to be repeatable by anyone and everyone that tries to repeat the experiments. The same cannot be said about miracles presented in biblical texts. And if a published result cannot be repeated, the person(s) who presented the paper can kiss their careers goodbye.
          An example off the top of my head is cold fusion. Those researchers who claimed they discovered cold fusion couldn't even sell burgers after the fiasco.
          Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.
          Edited by Admin, : Fix images.

          This message is a reply to:
           Message 96 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 12:20 PM ICANT has not replied

          Cold Foreign Object 
          Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
          Posts: 3417
          Joined: 11-21-2003


          Message 105 of 326 (461060)
          03-21-2008 7:02 PM
          Reply to: Message 92 by Rahvin
          03-16-2008 10:14 PM


          Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
          You don't understand rational thought.
          The "agree with me or you are irrational" card.
          But let it be known that Rahvin, that is, a person who believes that apes morphed into men, thinks I am irrational. I am glad a person who says apes morphed into men thinks I am irrational. Logically it is the best evidence of my rationality.
          You're the one who believes the widespread acceptance of evolution is the punishment for the widespread acceptance of evolution
          Wrong.
          Acceptance of evolution means that God is punishing said persons for denying Him credit as Creator. This explains why a theory with no evidence is accepted.
          You're the one who accuses everyone who disagrees with you of being an "atheist"
          Wrong.
          I point out that evolution presupposes Materialism to be true and that Materialism presupposes Atheism to be true. In this context I point out that Christians who support evolution are not real Christians based on the evidence of their support of evolution based on Materialism.
          You're the one that even most Creationists and IDists won't touch
          Correction: it is Fundamentalists and Evolutionists that reject persons like myself, yes.
          Ray originally writes:
          But we know evolution is not science but a religion.
          Rahvin in response writes:
          It's not, as we've shown in many threads. Thanks for proving my point, Ray. You're yet another one of those who is desperate to say "you do it to!" so that your wacky beliefs can achieve the same validity as scientific theories. Your faith has not a lick of objective evidence - it's based entirely on appeals to tradition, appeals to authority, appeals to personal incredulity, and nothing of substance. You personally don't even have a loose contact with reality.
          Evolution has always been a religion - the religion of Atheism. That is how it originally began. It remains the religion of Atheism despite the confused and ignorant Christians who support it.
          We already know that evolutionists believe that their religion is science - very predictable. Evolution is scientISM, which is the deification of ideas that supplant God as Creator of reality and nature.
          Before 1859 Creationists controlled the scientific establishment. Now Evolutionists control the establishment. Evolution was never science and will never be science - it is Materialism.
          Creationism-ID is science. Our faith is based, in part, on the facts of science. Your faith in evolution is blind faith, supported by no facts or evidence. The "success" of your paradigm is explained by the punishment from God. How else does one explain the success of a theory that says God is not the cause of the observation of design seen in nature?
          Since nearly all Atheists support evolution this fact alone is the only evidence that any objective person needs to know that evolution is false, unscientific and Atheist philosophy.
          Your idol is a scumsucking moron of a televangelist who likes to bully gullible grandmothers until they send him money.
          Dr. Scott was a highly respected Stanford Ph.D. He was the most respected scholar in the world during his lifetime. The degree of rage seen in your comment above is equal to the degree that you perceive Dr. Scott to be the scholar who refuted your theory.
          Rahvin is just lashing out.
          Darwin wasn't an atheist, and his personal theology has nothing to do with the objective, observable evidence that is the basis of his theory.
          We know Darwin became an Atheist the moment that he concluded for transmutation. Because he lived in an anti-Atheism society he had to feign Deism-Theism, which accounts for your mistaken belief.
          Ray
          Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : grammar
          Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : more grammar

          This message is a reply to:
           Message 92 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2008 10:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

          Replies to this message:
           Message 106 by obvious Child, posted 03-21-2008 7:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

          Newer Topic | Older Topic
          Jump to:


          Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

          ™ Version 4.2
          Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024