Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 266 of 456 (555216)
04-12-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2010 10:38 AM


Re: Why We Believe
Wud up, dude...
Person A has heard about ghosts from stories and believes they exists. Let this be blind faith.
Person B gets the shit scared out of them by a vision of an incorporeal person and believes it was a ghost.
Wouldn't person B still have to accept on blind faith that ghosts are non-physical enitites of decesed people, animals, etc.?
In other words, what lead to the determination that the vision, whatever it was, correlates to what people have described as ghosts in stories and folklore?
The way I see it, person B has only added one step between them and blind faith, and that was the vision. But instead of stopping at the vision itself, they've gone one step further have made a determination that it was a ghost, which means they've accepted on blind faith that the stories and folklore define accurately what ghosts should be.
They could have just said, I had a vision of a person. But they didn't. They said, I had a vision of a ghost.
It wouldn't be blind faith to say I had a vision of a person. But I think it is blind faith to add a characteristic to the vision like that of "ghost" when the only bit of evidence is that you had a vision.
It's like when someone says they saw a UFO. Ok, you saw a UFO. But then they add, it was a spaceship from a far off galaxy or another universe. Ok, now how on earth was that determined? You would have to accept on blind faith that (1) intelligent life exists in other galaxies, and (2) that they have mastered the ability of galactic space travel. Two things that not one single shread of evidence exists for.
This to me is what separates faith from blind faith.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 10:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 6:01 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 277 of 456 (555451)
04-13-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 4:22 PM


Hi Flyer,
Now, I don't think this article by any means brings down evolution but there is an admitted problem here by a scientist who certainly isn't a creationist. He thinks there is a problem here.
There is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. One being an observed phenomenon(evolvement), the other being our attempt to explain it(the theory).
Scientist could be wrong on many, many things. Just as they could be wrong about how certain diseases mutate or a doctor could be wrong when he/she diagnosis you. But these errors are human errors, and don't have any impact on the observed phenomenon itself.
What you seem to be arguing is that, because humans haven't successfully explained, in detail, the evolutionary course of every single living/extinct organism, that some how the natural evolutionary process doesn't happen. I would hope though, at least by now in this thread, that you can see how that belief would make no sense.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 4:22 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 5:34 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 279 of 456 (555459)
04-13-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 5:34 PM


Since you've stated that you're leaving the thread, I'll respond with the knowledge that you won't reply back but with the hope that you'll read it and understand what I meant.
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying that just because evolution can't explain everything that it should be discredited. I'm saying that since it can't explain everything, at this point, that there is some faith involved.
My point was to better familiarize you with the terms you're using.
It's not that evolution can't explain everything, it's that our theory of evolution doesn't explain everything. There is a difference between "evolution" and the "theory of evolution." That was my point.
Human's have faith that they can explain natural phenomena, and we should have this faith since we've done a pretty good job so far. We landed on the moon! But it's the same method for research that we apply to everything. I'm sure many in the medical field have faith that one day, through research, testing, experimentation, trail and error, they'll be able to find a cure for AIDS or cancer. But their faith has no affect on the method used to achieve this goal.
Likewise, scientist have faith that one day, through reasearch, experiments, testing, trail and error, they'll be able to explain how every known organism evolved. But their faith has no affect on the method used to achieve this goal. The method in this case is the theory of evolution.
Take care,
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 5:34 PM Flyer75 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