Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 294 of 326 (464279)
04-24-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Rahvin
04-24-2008 2:17 PM


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.
here we go again
Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 2:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Admin, posted 04-24-2008 4:25 PM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 303 of 326 (464375)
04-25-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Granny Magda
04-24-2008 8:22 PM


Re: For the Record
GRANNY MAGDA writes:
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you antiLIE. Either explain how tiktaalik's discovery was based on faith or don't bother replying.
When all you find of an animal is a skull and several bone fragments, to conclude that it did things that other animals can not do, to me is relying on faith. Faith in your worldview, faith in the scientists word and faith in the artist rendition. A skull and a few fragments does not show that it walked on land with it's fins. We can observe other lobe fined fish today like the coelacanth and see that they use the lobe fins like rotary propellers and hover and maneuver like a helicopter in the water. To say that the tiktaalik was different and walked on land is speculative with no evidence other than a lobe fin with wrists that would have had to have extream strength to move the tiny wrist/lobe fin to body ratio.
Edited by antiLIE, : re write, didn't like the pacing of the paragraphs...
Edited by antiLIE, : removed pointless insult and re worded some things.. lol

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Granny Magda, posted 04-24-2008 8:22 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by bluegenes, posted 04-25-2008 8:17 AM 1071 has replied
 Message 305 by Granny Magda, posted 04-25-2008 8:20 AM 1071 has replied
 Message 306 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 8:24 AM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 307 of 326 (464382)
04-25-2008 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by bluegenes
04-25-2008 8:17 AM


bluegenes writes:
You may be missing a point on this particular thread. The point here isn't whether or not scientists might be mistaken in any particular interpretations of any evidence available to them, but whether or not science is faith based, in the way that all the religions are, or whether it's based on observations and evidence.
Do you think science is a faith based religion, or not?
In this case i was mistaken about the topic.. So I will answer. No i DO NOT think that Science is faith based religion. Not at all, and it should never be faith based. I do believe that the general theory of Evolution is faith based and not part of science. I also believe that Creation is faith based and is not part of science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by bluegenes, posted 04-25-2008 8:17 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by bluegenes, posted 04-25-2008 10:20 AM 1071 has not replied
 Message 311 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 10:50 AM 1071 has not replied
 Message 312 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 10:59 AM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 308 of 326 (464383)
04-25-2008 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Percy
04-25-2008 8:24 AM


Re: For the Record
Percy writes:
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct about the evidence being insufficient, a view based upon insufficient evidence is not faith. And it most certainly isn't any kind of religious faith of the type that believes, for example, that when you die your soul goes to heaven.
Well put that way then definately not. I stand corrected.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 8:24 AM Percy has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 309 of 326 (464385)
04-25-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Granny Magda
04-25-2008 8:20 AM


Re: For the Record
Granny Magda writes:
Unfortunately you still haven't answered my question. I asked how the discovery was based on faith and dogma, not the subsequent interpretation
Answer: The discovery was not faith based.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Granny Magda, posted 04-25-2008 8:20 AM Granny Magda has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 313 of 326 (464406)
04-25-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Percy
04-25-2008 10:59 AM


Percy...indeed i agree.. That is why I said that this is what "I believe"...
Like I said.. Just answering the thread.. I think that SCIENCE is not faith based. but.. I do not agree that Evolution IS science. nor do I believe that all modern biology is based on it. (pretty bold claim there) all this in my opinion

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 10:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 12:53 PM 1071 has not replied
 Message 315 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 1:02 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 316 of 326 (464420)
04-25-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Rahvin
04-25-2008 1:02 PM


Well. Since my opinion means less than nothing, I will have to be careful what I say. *clears throat* The Scientific Evidence that the general theory of Evolution is based on is not faith based. The conclusion come to about the evidence by Naturalists is what I consider faith based. Not the Evidence. That is like saying.. "I believe there are fossils when there are no fossils" This is not what I am saying at all.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 1:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 1:41 PM 1071 has replied
 Message 319 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 2:16 PM 1071 has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 318 of 326 (464426)
04-25-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Rahvin
04-25-2008 1:41 PM


Creation is based on evidence as well. (other than the Bible) but when you look at the evidence, do you not disagree with the "conclusion" come to by creationists? The same applies here.. The evidence is there.. it is real, but the interpretations of what it means is based on ones faith in their world view. I see something different than you when I look at the same evidence you have for evolution.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 1:41 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2008 2:40 PM 1071 has not replied
 Message 321 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 2:55 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 322 of 326 (464440)
04-25-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Rahvin
04-25-2008 2:55 PM


wow... seriously. you make a great case Rahvin. You analogies are great. The gun knife thing.. very well done. I really appreciate your rebuttal because it is not blasting me nor falling victim to any fallacies in the art of debate. Of course I do not agree with some of it. but that is not the point... Well done. [not being sarcastic]
Edited by antiLIE, : edit like yoda i do
Edited by antiLIE, : spelling

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 2:55 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 4:05 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 324 of 326 (464451)
04-25-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Rahvin
04-25-2008 4:05 PM


What I disagree with is irrelevant to this thread. LOL let me explain
I agree that perception of evidence is not faith based rather it be correct or incorrect; also agreed that science is based on evidence and not faith
I disagree with the ToE. (that is why i didn't say what I disagreed with, it wasn't relevant to the thread)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2008 4:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2008 6:47 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