Equating science with 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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." 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. 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. 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.

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. 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! 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. 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.

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. 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. 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! 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. 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. 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 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. 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. And since those beliefs are based on objective evidence, that belief is not based on faith. 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?" 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." 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). 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. 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. 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. 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 isn't all that realistic a mix, either - we know from direct observation that organic compounds like methane can and do exist naturally in abiotic environments. Titan, for the perfect example, has literally oceans of methane. Indeed we should. Like the other experiments where amino acids were produced.

quote:

---

In the 1950s and 1960s Sidney W. Fox, studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres.

---

But then, abiogenesis isn't the topic here - science being equated with faith is. So, why don't we tie this back to the topic by asking whether the abiogenesis hypothesis is based on faith?Abiogenesis is the (promising) hypothesis that life arose from non-living chemicals. The current model is incomplete, but the steps taken thus far begin from the best models we have of the ancient Earth, and progress to amino acids and even proteins from compounds we know exist in abiotic environments. The hypothesis garners a great deal of attention due to its implications, and becasue it's a fascinating area of study, but while many people (scientists and others) believe that abiogenesis looks like to good potential candidate for the origin of life on Earth, there is currently no scientific concensus that abiogenesis is the most accurate model. It does not convey even remotely the confidence of, say, the Big Bang model, or the Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Gravity. The model is simply incomplete.So what, exactly, is based on faith?The conditions of the early Earth? We have good evidence supporting our current model of that. Titan is strikingly similar to what scientists currently think the Earth may have looked like a few billion years ago, except much warmer due to proximity to the Sun. That's not base don faith, it's based on observational evidence.Is the formation of amino acids and even proteins based on faith? We have seen the spontaneous formation of amino acids and proteins in experiments under the conditions modeled for the early Earth. Nobody says "this definitely happened," we only say "this looks like it could have happened." That's not faith, that's a logical conclusion based on observational evidence.Is the formation of proteins into the far more complex structures found in current living organisms taken on faith? Nobody is saying that this happened - scientists are looking into it to see if it's even possible. While they've made remarkable progress towards spontaneous formation of complex chains of proteins, they have not yet succeeded, and so abiogenesis remains an incompletely tested, incompletely modeled hypothesis. That's not faith - that's investigation using observational evidence.So, where is the belief that lacks any basis in objective evidence?I'm not seeing any faith involved here, Baretta. I'm seeing the scientific method doing exactly what it does best - working through all of the available evidence to arrive at a reasonable conclusion based wholly on objective evidence, with no faith involved.

So far you soud like a reasonable individual. In my OP I never proposed that faith was completely invalid, or that people are silly for relying on it. Faith relies on subjective experience instead of objective evidence. As you said, they are different systems, apples and oranges.The problem, and the reason behind the OP, is that some individuals (you may have guessed that ICANT is one) feel the need to say that science depends on faith just as much as religion does. They want to say "you do it too!" so that their beliefs can be considered objectively valid, as science is. You are correct in stating that both science and faith involve belief. The issue is that science trusts objective, repeatable evidence, and draws reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. Faith believes without objective evidence. The two are clearly different, and when representations of reality are concerned, objectivity is clearly superior to subjectivity. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want - but it is demonstrably not so based on objective evidence. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is clearly not a representation of reality.When you say "whatever belief system is believed more often than it is not must be more true" is absurd, you are also correct. Truth is not a democracy, and the validity of an argument cannot be based on the number of supporters it garners. That would be an appeal to authority - at certain points in human history, such a system would propose that the Earth is flat, that fairies control natural processes, and that volcanic eruptions are the result of Gaia's indigestion.Again, objectivity is obviously superior when making an honest representation of reality. Subjective beliefs based on no objective evidence make for an extremely poor representation of reality.

And the topic of this thread is essencially the mud that has filled the water. Some people attempt to equate objective evidence that can be reproduced at will with subjective experiences and beliefs that have a marked lack of any objective evidence.This is a problem. We already agree that faigh and science are two compeltely different systems, one based at its core on subjectivity and the other based on objectivity. Why, then, do some people (like ICANT) insist on claiming that science is based on just as much faith as his religious beliefs?The answer is that he wants to claim it takes "more faith to believe in (insert scientific model here)" than to believe "goddidit." He wants to claim that his subjective beliefs have equal or greater validty when compared with the objective conclusions of science.What he's really saying, of course, is that it's "easier" to believe in God than in scientific models. And he's right - it takes a very large amount of effort to really understand the basis of, say, cosmological models. It takes no effort whatsoever to encounter an unknown and cry out "god!" That's just it - if there is verifiable and accurate data, the reasoning is no longer subjective. If I can show you reproducible, verifiable evidence, my conclusions are objective.Faith-based beliefs are those which are based on no objective evidence.Symbols can mean different things across cultures or even individuals. They have no accurate connection with reality - they are wholly defined and modeled on the human imagination. So too with faith and other subjective subjects.Signs, like science, are clear and objective. They remain the same, reproducible, demonstrable, and with a clear connection to reality. Science is objective. Let's remember that science, with the scientific method, is the ultimate expression of the attempt to eliminate the crossover between sign and symbol altogether. Results are tested over and over again by multiple independent researchers in the attempt to drive out any possibility of subjectivity.The Big Bang model, for example, means something very specific. The model is not subjective, and does not rely on anything subjective. It does not require interpretation, only knowledge of the principles involved and the ability to follow the math. The results are the same across any number of individuals so long as the math is done correctly. Additional variables and different values can be used to test against observations from reality, but again, no subjectivity is involved.When discussing models of reality, the scientific method is not only completely different from religion in that it is not based on faith, it is also infinitely superior becasue its accuracy can be tested.Subjective beliefs with no objective evidence are all of equal value when comparing them to reality - belief n the Christian deity is exactly as valid as the Islamic deity, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - all have exactly the same objective ties to reality: none whatsoever.

quote:

---

So far you soud like a reasonable individual. In my OP I never proposed that faith was completely invalid, or that people are silly for relying on it. Faith relies on subjective experience instead of objective evidence. As you said, they are different systems, apples and oranges.

---

I did not mean to put any words in your mouth, I know that you are not saying with any amount of conviction that any such system is compeltely invalid. This I think is because, people including you or I, often rely on both the objective empirical data, and the interpretation of these senses. Actually when I said they were completely differing systems I was expecting an argument that would somehow allow me to make that statement. Though I dont believe in my opinions that faith can render science any more validity, or vice versa, I too believe that people have reasons for reaching such conclusions. [/qs]I didn't mean to suggest you were - that comment was meant for lurkers and certain posters who like to latch on to what they see as hypocrisy.I agree that people have reasons for faith-based conclusions. Such reasons include tradition, trust in parents (as was the case for me), gullibility, wishful thinking, false pattern recognition, and all manner of other subjective reasons that have no objective basis in the real world.

Two things, Beretta:First, the old Earth model is based on the evidence. You may disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but it still has nothing to do with faith. Again, faith is defined as a belief not supported by any objective evidence.Second, even though this is in danger of getting extremely off-topic, you're completely wrong about your doubts regarding geological dating methods. The old Earth model is regarded as factual by science becasue it is verified by many independent dating methods. Rock layers, multiple forms of radiometric dating, tree rings, fossil numbers, cosmological dating...all of these and more agree that the Earth is old, simultaneously, from multiple independant avenues of study. Your suggestion that "things may have been different in the past" is refuted by the fact that, were radiological decay rates to have been different, they would have needed to change by different amounts for different radioisotopes. Altering the speed of light to allow for distant stars to be visible is untenable as well, because altering the speed of light by even small amounts would result in a Universe completely different from the one we live in.When hundreds of compeltely independant bits of data all suggest that the Earth is old, and then agree on the rough age of the planet, the conclusion is clear.But again, relevant to this thread, the important bit is that the old Earth model is based on objective evidence, and as such is not faith.Like ICANT, you seem to be confusing "based on objective evidence" with "solidly proven." We don't do much of that in science. We make tentative conclusions based on evidence, and the tentativity decreases with additional evidnece in support of those conclusions. We know the behavior of gravity pretty damned well, for example, but the Theory of Gravity is still tentative pending additional information. Newton's version of gravity was completely outdone by Einstein's model - we only use Newton's equasions today because they are easier and "good enough" at the right scales, like sending space probes to Mars.You could say that Newton's model was incomplete - but that fact doesn't mean it was based on faith.For another example, the flat-Earth model was based at one time on the evidence available - the world looked flat, and nobody had ever gone all the way around to show that it wasn't. The flat-Earth model was, at that time, not based on faith, but rather on evidence.In the same way, regardless of whether you agree with the interpretation of the data or not, the old Earth model is based on the evidence we currently have available, and is not based on faith. Whether it's correct or not doesn't even come into the debate - it's based on a self-consistent interpretation of all available objective evidence. Please create a new thread and put forward this diametrically opposed evidence. If it's actually evidence that contradicts the old Earth model, I'd surely love to hear about it. So far all I've heard are doubts and disagreements from people without even the slightest education in the fields of geology, biology, cosmology, or radiology. It's really not surprising that someone who doesn't understand, for example, radiology, would disagree with radiometric dating. You have it backwards, Beretta. You're projecting. See, scientists take great pains to avoid preconceived notions influencing their models. The scientific method is specifically designed to follow the evidence wherever it goes, even when it contradicts commonly held beliefs. When Newton's models were shown to be incomplete, scientists embraced Einstein's more accurate model. When the flat-Earth model was shown by evidence to be incorrect, scientists discarded it in favor of the model more consistent with the facts.The evidence is what leads to the old Earth "worldview," Beretta, not the other way around. This is exactly the point of this thread: You have some inner need to rquate science with faith becasue it puts your faith-based beliefs on equal standing with the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, etc.It is not faith "all around" to any extent, Beretta. There is no faith involved in science. Science is entirely based upon objective, reproducible evidence. Whether you agree or disagree with an interpretation of that evidence is irrelevant - it's based on the evidence, and so cannot be called faith. The two are not the same. Intelligent Design doesn't even propose that, Bareta. Get your models straight. ID proposes an intelligent designer, but doesn't say anything at all about nonphysical, nonmaterial causes. ID takes great pains to avoid identifying the designer.Yes, we all know that they're talking about the Christian deity. But their models do not, anywhere, speak of "nonmaterial" causes. They speak of "irreducible complexity" and incredulity at the thought that a system as complicated and functional as life could have evolved through natural causes - but they never mention "spirits" or anything else "nonphysical."Aside from that, ID has been completely destroyed in real scientific circles. The only place ID has made any gains is with the uneducated, religiously biased public who can be easily swayed by anyone with a silver tongue who preaches to the choir. They have no evidence. But then, ID isn't the topic of this thread. The belief that the Universe can be explained through natural means is not one based on faith - it's based on past experience. So far, we have been able to model the Universe through natural means with a very high degree of accuracy. This is evidence that those things we have not yet explained likely have naturalistic explanations, as well. Again, there is no faith here. They most certainly are allowed, Beretta, as soon as objective evidence is uncovered that requires their addition into the model. So far, no objective evidence for the existence of any particular deity (or indeed any "higher intelligence" at all) has been shown to exist. Parsimony dictates that such entities, with no evidence requiring their addition into the equasion, are at best irrelevant and at worst nonexistent.Beliving in their existence despite this lack of any objective evidence is what defines faith. Beretta. It's not a differing opinion as to the interpretation of evidence - that would still be a belief based on evidence. Faith is a belief based on no objective evidence whatsoever. What you just said in the part Ive bolded is that any unknowns require faith. Is this some whacky extension of the "god of the gaps?" When we say "Everything we do know fits with this model, but we don't know much about this other thing," where is the statement of faith? How does "I don't know" equate to faith? It's silly. There is nothing about a lack of knowledge surrounding the human brain and cognitive thought that contradicts evolutionary models - it's just an unknown area under current examination.You see faith everywhere, Beretta. Using your loose definition of faith, I should say that I have "faith" that there is a keyboard in front of me, or that I have to have "faith" that you exist because I don't know your name.

I'm sorry, when exactly were the Bible, poetry, metaphor and flowery language counted as definitions?I thought that was what we used dictionaries for.

quote:

---

faith -noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

---

Relevant definition bolded. Perhaps, antiLIE, you should go back and read the rest of this thread, where we've been over this exact issue already.

This thread is not about Biblical translation. This thread is about those individuals who see the need to equate objective evidence with subjective faith.It only tangentially has anything to do with the Bible in that those individuals tend to be Christian, but it applies equally to any subjective faith-based belief, like alien abductions, fairies, other religions, etc.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.

Which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.Again, we are discussing the fact that certain individuals see the need to equate science, that is, a system of modeling the observable Universe based on objective evidence, with faith, which is defined as a subjective belief that is not based on objective evidence.Your biblical translation of faith is irrelevant to such a discussion.We've been over this in this thread already. ICANT tried to use the same damned definition of faith that you are propoosing. It was pointed out then as I'm pointing out now that your definition of faith is not a relevant or useful definition for this discussion.Faith, as definied in the dictionary, is a belief not based on objective evidence.Your flowery Biblical definition of faith as the "evidence of things unseen" is not accurate, or relevant. Your definition could just as easily be used to decribe belief in air, since we cannot see it. The Biblical definition as you've presented it is not useful or relevant.The dictionary definition of faith as a belief not based on proof is both useful and relevant.Let me put it this way: no discussion will progress in this thread using the definition you've extracted from your book of mythology. You and ICANT will be the only two people willing to accept that definition, and the remainder of the thread will be taken up with posts like these where we discuss the definition of faith rather than how some people try to equate faith with science.The definition that has been used even in the OP for the word "faith" is the definition found in the dictionary: a belief not based on objective evidence. Either use that defintion or stop participating in this thread.

So, I'm really confused.While I understand the discussion on micro/macroevolution that's been going on for a few posts now, I'm wondering what in the name of His Holy Noodliness this has to do with equating science with faith?Is someone saying that macroevolution is taken on faith? Becasue it's not. It's a logical inference based on the observed smaller-scale changes, and the observed fossil record as well as the genetic and physical structure of modern living creatures all lend significant supporting evidence to macroevolution. There's no faith involved - it's all about evidence, as is all of science.

But the topic is not related to what people believe. The topic is regarding the insistence that science uses faith. The "oh yeah? you do it too!" argument used by Creationists who honestly beleive that subjective faith with no evidence is equivalent to scientific models based on objective evidence.Whether some people believe in macroevolution or not is irrelevant. Now, if someone says "macroevolution is accepted on faith, not evidence," that would be on topic, but proving macroevolution would still not be. A question I have posed many times in several threads and never received an answer to. But it's not on-topic for this thread.

You again? With more word salad and meaningless nonsense as you navel-graze and utterly fail to address anything approaching the topic? Don't start your "everything that exists is in existence" bullshit. It's not on-topic. it has nothing to do with how some people try to claim that scientfic theories are based on faith just as religion is. Most of thatdoesn't even make a lick of sense. Science is the study of the observable Universe. You're right that it "ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept," because personal faith has nothing to do with objective evidence. That's the very point. Scientists are required to leave their faith at the door and rely only on objective evidence when dealing with scientific models. Science "overlooks god" becasue there is no evidence regarding "god." What faith is used in science?! This has been asked repeatedly throughout this thread, and nobody has provided a reasonable answer. My contention is that there is no faith in science, because science is based entirely on observable, objective evidence and the logical inferences drawn from that evidence, while faith is defined as a belief that is not based on evidence. The two are polar opposites. So how is anyone "taking for granted the faith they do have?" What is arrogance? If you think the topic of this thread implies that they are equal, you didn't even read the opening post. ...what? How can a seed have faith?! You're rambling incoherantly again, tesla. I seriosuly doubt your connection to reality - you seem incapable of saying anything that doesn't boil down to a word-salad nonsensical mishmash of vague philisophical opinions and "grand revelations" you think you've stumbled upon but which actually have no relevance to anything. It doesn't require faith to walk. In such cases, the belief not supported by evidence would be that the victims cannot walk.But this has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with the topic. You just contradicted yourself. If a belief is based on observations, it is not faith. Faith is a belief not based on evidence. You cannot have "faith based on observations;" it's an oxymoron. If anyone were to actually observe such things as magical talking bushes, those individuals would not require faith - they would have direct observational knowledge. Their beliefs would not be based on faith, but would rather be based on objective evidence.However, believing that these things actualy happend when the only evidence is a musty old series of mishmashed books is faith - there is no objective evidence showing that they happened at all.But again, this has nothing to do with science...so what's your point, tesla? Oh, that's right - you don't do well with "points." You just like to ramble on and make long posts of nonsense. Again with the nonsense. This is not a place for sermons or even wondering at the state of the world. The topic here is the fact that some people try to claim that science is based on faith just as religion is; a claim that is blatantly false. None of your nonsense even seems to address that, except in a silly roundabout way by claiming that "faith is a requirement to exist."Faith is not required to exist, tesla. But then, that's still not the topic here, is it.

How can this be true when there are mountains of evidence upon which evolution is based, including direct observation?Even if you disagree with the interpretation of that evidence (a separate topic), because evolution is based on evidence it cannot be based on faith.Evolution is based (among other things) on the observed similarities across multiple species of organisms, on the placement in the geological record at which species are found, on genetics on direct observation of the process in action...That being the case, it is obvious that evolution is based on evidence, even if you disagree with what the evidence means. It is therefor not based on faith.You also realize that nearly all of modern Biology is related to evolutionary theory, right? And that most of the models used by Biology, models that have continuously produced highly accurate results and real-world useful discoveries, are based on evolution and do not work without it?Saying that "evolution is not science" does equate to saying that all of modern Biology is also not science.Do you really think that all of our current understanding of living things and how they relate and function is based on faith? This in the face of more evidence than you could learn in an entire lifetime?Where is the faith, antiLIE?