Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 250 of 326 (463937)
04-22-2008 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
03-13-2008 11:14 AM


Re: defining faith
tesla writes:
belief is not faith.
Actually Belief is the verb form of Faith. I am not assuming this.. look back at the definitions of the original Koiné Greek of the New Testiment.
You have 'faith' that something happened or will happen.
You act in 'belief' of it.
Of course we as english speaking western and european decent have coined our own definitions of the two. But if you read the context of the original languages of the bible you will see they have different meanings.
-----
Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab. They are both the study of Origins.
The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.
Edited by antiLIE, : pushed submit before i was done typing... need coffee...lol

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:14 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 8:14 AM 1071 has replied
 Message 252 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 8:18 AM 1071 has replied
 Message 298 by tesla, posted 04-24-2008 5:12 PM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 253 of 326 (463947)
04-22-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by bluegenes
04-22-2008 8:18 AM


Re: defining faith
Bluegenes writes:
And there was silly me, thinking that we were speaking modern English on this website, when all the time we should be writing in ancient Greek!
Agnoia eftyxias einai kata ti gnwmi sas.
Bluegenes writes:
Evolution can certainly be observed and studied in a lab, and creation cannot. Perhaps you meant "speciation" (which can occasionally be observed) or "common descent" rather than evolution.
You are correct. I was speaking of Macroevolution. Microevolution is observed all the time.
Bluegenes writes:
The theory of evolution is definitely scientific. It is based on observation, evidence, and the confirmation of some of its predictions. None of the many (contradicting) creation mythologies are scientific.
Microevolution is based on observation. "creation mythologies" are also based on evidence in addition to ancient documentation.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 8:18 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 12:18 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 254 of 326 (463948)
04-22-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Granny Magda
04-22-2008 8:14 AM


Re: defining faith
Granny Magda writes:
I'm sorry antiLIE, but if you don't consider evolution to be science then I am struggling to imagine what you would consider science.
Science comes from Latin, scientia, meaning "knowledge". Also 'Gnosis' from the Koiné. So we know that science is knowledge. "Any systematic knowledge or practice." So you want to know what I concider science.. I would say things that can be observed using the scientific method...
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
With particles to people Macroevolution, how can you possibly consider billions of years scientifically?
The same applies to Creation. You can not scientiffically observe God creating a universe in a lab...

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 8:14 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-22-2008 9:35 AM 1071 has replied
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 10:26 AM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 256 of 326 (463954)
04-22-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
04-22-2008 9:35 AM


Re: defining faith
Percy writes:
Faith means not having evidence for what you believe but believing it anyway.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance - (hy-po'sta-sis) - "standing Firm"
Hope - (el-pid'-zo) - "waiting on a promise given"
Evidence - (el'-eng-khos)- that by which a thing is proved or tested
"Standing firm on the promise given (is) the proof of 'things not seen'"

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-22-2008 9:35 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 11:48 AM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 258 of 326 (463960)
04-22-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
04-22-2008 10:26 AM


Re: defining faith
Granny Magda writes:
It is interesting that you claim not to be a creationist, but you employ familiar creationist strawmen, like "macroevolution", not a term that scientists tend to use.
1. I have never claimed not to be creationist.
2. Macroevolution / Microevolution is what Biology college textbooks call it.. I am just repeating what is taught.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 10:26 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Taz, posted 04-22-2008 11:46 AM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 261 of 326 (463966)
04-22-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Taz
04-22-2008 11:46 AM


Re: defining faith
Taz writes:
You really should stop arguing semantics and really try to understand the concepts in biological science. Being able to nitpick people's words doesn't impress anyone. Let me know when you're ready to stop arguing semantics and start getting down to the real business.
LOL.. I agree, I wasn't the one nitpicking the words and arguing semantics, that was Granny Magda.
Taz writes:
Your messiah Kent Hovind
Nice debasement.
Rahvin writes:
I'm sorry, when exactly were the Bible, poetry, metaphor and flowery language counted as definitions?
It is not about your definitions, it is about the translations.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Taz, posted 04-22-2008 11:46 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:06 PM 1071 has replied
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2008 12:24 PM 1071 has not replied
 Message 273 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 1:52 PM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 263 of 326 (463970)
04-22-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rahvin
04-22-2008 12:06 PM


Re: defining faith
Rahvin writes:
Your Biblical translation has literally nothing to do with this thread. Again, perhaps you should go back and read the rest of it, as it appears that you have not.
Incorrect. My definition was of FAITH. the Thread is "Equating science with faith" ... you said it is "equate objective evidence with subjective faith" If one is to try and point out how Evolution and Creation both use faith, we have to have a clear understanding of what 'biblical' faith is. I was difining the biblical translation of FAITH

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:06 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:32 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 266 of 326 (463975)
04-22-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by bluegenes
04-22-2008 12:18 PM


Re: defining faith
bluegenes writes:
but if you really were "antiLIE", you wouldn't be one of these.
anti-LIE means I am against LIES. In other words, I am for the never ending quest for truth.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 12:18 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Taz, posted 04-22-2008 12:31 PM 1071 has not replied
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2008 12:43 PM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 269 of 326 (463980)
04-22-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Rahvin
04-22-2008 12:32 PM


Re: defining faith
taz writes:
Good, then you can start by telling your fellow christians to stop lying all the time. Hint: look at the Rover trial fiasco.
LOL... I agree about neo-christians lying, and I am against that. I am not that kind of a "christian". I follow reformed theology and reprobation
You guys obviously can not handle my comments, so I will no longer be posting on this thread.
Rahvin writes:
Your biblical translation of faith is irrelevant to such a discussion.
I digress, if this be the case, I do not belong on this thread.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 274 of 326 (464244)
04-24-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
04-22-2008 10:26 AM


Answering Granny Magda
First. the remains of the Tiktaalik [intermediate form between sea and land animals] that was found, consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin. Some think it is an intermediate form because similarities to both fish and tetrapods. it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet". For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. [c&p: Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science ]
Second,
granny magada Message 257 writes:
It is interesting that you claim not to be a creationist, but you employ familiar creationist strawmen, like "macroevolution", not a term that scientists tend to use.
I would like to point out to every one what a Straw Man fallacy in the art of debate is because I see the term flung about more than it should be in these forums.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
[c&p: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate ]
Okay, now you said "macroevolution, not a term that scientists tend to use." ... Indeed it is. I do not like this term, I just use it because Biology books call it that. This is NOT a straw man by any means. Macroevolution - Wikipedia
Also Talk Origins [dot] org claims that Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms. Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
Edited by antiLIE, : added more nifty links *smile*
Edited by antiLIE, : i misspelled a word.. oops

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 10:26 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:28 AM 1071 has replied
 Message 302 by Granny Magda, posted 04-24-2008 8:22 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 276 of 326 (464247)
04-24-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taz
04-24-2008 11:28 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:28 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:49 AM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 278 of 326 (464250)
04-24-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Taz
04-24-2008 11:49 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
wikipedia.org writes:
An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.
How is this not crock to duck ideology?

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:49 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 12:24 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 281 of 326 (464254)
04-24-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Taz
04-24-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
talkorigins.org writes:
In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.. I am not in a semantic battle. I am not the one with the problem with the definition of the word. This is a typical Red herring fallacy in the art of debate:
RED HERRING: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)
It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.
The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 12:24 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:04 PM 1071 has replied
 Message 285 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2008 1:11 PM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 287 of 326 (464267)
04-24-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Vacate
04-24-2008 1:04 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
VACATE writes:
antiLIE writes:
I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.
Yes you are. You where told:
Taz writes:
When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together.
You even posted:
antiLIE writes:
macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale
Yet you still are found to be promoting a strawman when saying rubbish like this:
antiLIE writes:
How is this not crock to duck ideology?
For a croc to turn into a duck, or the sudden appearance of feathers you are leaving out the "time" factor of macroevolution and the compounded effects of microevolution. This is a misuse of the word and a total setup to agrue a strawman.
This RED HERRING is starting to rot... I AM NOT SAYING that it is NOT LONG TERM!!! Where Are you getting this??? You show me where I have used this term out of context. you keep repeating this garbage about a word and have gone WAY off topic. I am NOT misusing this word... would you prefer that I say MACRO-BILLIONSOFYEARS-EVOLUTION?
Okay... lol.. I think i felt something snap in the back of my neck... Lets get back on topic..
Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:04 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:39 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 289 of 326 (464272)
04-24-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Vacate
04-24-2008 1:39 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
Vacate writes:
Nice work.
Indeed. So in straw man terms.... we have come to the conclusion that a dinosaur turning in to a bird over millions of years is not macroevolution and requires no faith because terms and definitions do not matter in science. Right?
Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:39 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 2:05 PM 1071 has not replied
 Message 292 by teen4christ, posted 04-24-2008 2:10 PM 1071 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