Creation, Evolution, and faith

In other words, "Faith is wishful thinking and having cionfidence that an assertion is true even when there is no reason for that confidence in teh form of evidence." Particularly so when the Bible directly contradicts observable, physical evidence. IE, basically all of Genesis, Exodus, etc. There is no such thing. As has been stated, the process of evolution does not begin with "nothing." It begins with life already existing - whether that life was the result of abiogenesis (which still doesn't qualify as "nothing"), panspermia, alien science projects, or even divine Creation.Evolution is simply the process by which the features displayed by a given population of living things change over time. The process is an inevitability in any circumstance where living thigns pass on their traits to their offspring imperfectly (as in, the offspring are not identical clones of the parent, but rather possess their own alleles that were not inherited, which we call "mutations") and where resources are limited. Those features that help an individual better acquire those limited resources than their neighbors will tend to allow that individual to pass on its features to its offspring mroe readily than those individuals who have less access to resources or are consumed by predators, and so gradually over generations the inherited traits that allowed for increased access to the limited resources will be more and more widely represented in teh population as a whole. What aspect of evolution, spevcifically, is taken on faith rather than being based entirely on evidence and logical extrapolation of that evidence? WHat part is based on wishful thinking? What aspect of the Theory of Evolution, in particular, is held with confidence despite no evidencial basis for that confidence? FALSE. Utterly false.Darwin's theory was based entirely on his own direct observations. Present your evidence that some aspect of Darwin's theory was held with confidence that was not backed by observed evidence, or that was based entirely upon wishful thinking. Or retract. This is an absurd line of argument, Flyer. Darwin was pointing out examples in nature of features that he, personally, could not immediately explain through evolution. He believed that those features were stillt he result of evolution even if the specific pathway was unknown because of his experience with other more easily understood features - in other words, not faith, but prior experience and evidence.A few centuries of research sicne then, of course, has allowed us to vastly improve upon what one man was able to observe, and we now have evolutionary pathways for things Darwin personally was unable to answer - the evolution of the eye, of the bombardier beetle, etc. Appeals to authority, Flyer, logical fallacies. What individuals say is irrelevant.Demonstrate specifically what aspect of the Theory of Evolution is taken on faith. Which aspect is held with confidence without evidence to support such confidence? Which aspect is based solely on wishful thinking? ...there is no aspect of the Theory of Evolution, being in fact a scientific theory, where science is not involved. Do you take gravity on faith, Flyer? Do you need to know the specific equasion showing the gravitational attraction between you and the Earth based on your respective masses to know that, if you jump, you'll fall back down?Or are the specific details irrelevant to understanding that, since every single other time you or anyone else has ever jumped that they fell back down, you are almost certainly going to fall back down if you jump as well?"I don't know everything" does not mean "I'm taking this on faith." That's what you are asserting here, and it's absurd. For the same reason that knowing the starting point of a road tripis irrelevant to understanding the workings of an internal combustion engine. For the same reason that we know we'll fall back down when we jump regardless of whether we individually understand the modern Theory of Gravity. For the same reason you don't need to know the specific programming code of this message board to know that, when you hit the "reply" button, you will be taken to the "reply" page.The Theory of Evolution is the process by which features in populations of organisms change over time. It is an inevitable process where those features are inherited by offspring, where new features can spontaneously occur through imperfect inheritence, and where resources are limited.THe process of evolution has been directly observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Computer simulations that use simple models consisting only of inheritable traits, a random element representative of mutation, and limited resources and/or predators have also displayed the process of evolution, showing that it happens by itself without any directing so long as those conditions are met, regardless of what set up those conditions initially.The Theory of Evolution will remain just as valid if abiogenesis is falsified, for the same reason the the Theory of Gravity would not be falsified by the falsification of Germ Theory. Evolution is based on direct observation and the fact that all evidence relevant to the subject anywhere fits within its predictions, and no evidence anywhere contradicts them. The predictions of the Theory of Evolution have proven to be extremely accurate, to the point that literally all of modern biology ties into it, from genetics to antibiotics to animal husbandry.Where is the faith, Flyer? All I see are direct observations and validated, accurate predictions. I don't see the "evidence of things unseen," or the "proof of things hoped for." I don't see wishful thinking or assertions that are not supported by evidence. Where is the faith?

It's all irrelevant anyway.No matter how you slice it, scientific theories carry a confidence in accuracy that is borne of experience - previously verified predictions, observations, independent repetition of experiments, etc. You could say that I have "faith" that when I jump I'll fall back down, but my confidence in such a situation is due to my previous experience of having fallen back down every single time I;ve ever jumped, and everyone around me I've ever seen or heard of jumping having an identical experience.Religious faith of the sort that allows for belief in deities is compeltely different, because there is no observation, no confirmation, no independant testing, no previous experience that meaningfully justifies confidence in such assertions.Even if you insist on calling them both "faith" (an absurdity that I think broadens the definition of the word such that it can be used for any beleif based on anything at all), it's blatantly obvious that there is a different thought process happening between the person who asserts that gravity will pull him back to Earth if he jumps, and the person who asserts that Jesus is waiting to judge him when he dies.That's the crux of this topic, and there's really no arguing it. Your side discussions are red herrings.

Sure, if Obama actually wrote it.But then, we have a longer expected life than 2000 years ago. It's conceivable that Obama could push 90 and still be around. 2000 years ago, being able to live long enough to write an account 60 years after the event which took place when you were at least adult age? That would make you pushing between 75 and 90.It's not considered t a contemporary account because it requires the author to be far older than the average life expectancy of the time. I would be a miracle in itself for such an author to still be able to write...let alone remember the account accurately.

Seriously?I have to provide a source to back up the assertion that 75-90 is significantly greater than the average life expectancy circa 30-60 AD? When the average life expectancy in America today is 78, with all of the medical advances we've made in 2000 years?Not to mention that such a person would remain unaffected by any age-related disorder like dementia?Perhaps I should start backing up claims that "water is wet," and "the sky is blue?" Jesus fucking Christ, slevesque, are you really an idiot?Fine. Here you go: Census data from Roman Egypt circa 30 AD.Same general region, within the Roman empire, same general time period. Notice what happens after the 45-49 age range. I didn't say that. I never said anything even remotely like it.A contemporary source means: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time.If a person wasn't actually alive when the events happened, then nothing they write is contemporary with the source. You were alive during Obama's campaign, so your writings would be contemporary with that event.That's a bit different from talking about people who weren't even alive when the supposed event took place. I do consider Obama's account of his own election to be contemporary. As I said, in the very post you're replying to, which apparently you did not read.I am consistent in demanding that a person have been alive during a supposed event in order to write a contemporary account of it.Writing about the events of circa 30 AD roughly 40 years later when the life expectancy dropped off around ages 45-49 strains credulity that a person would still be alive and able to write.That's significantly different than Obama's case, because living past 80 or even 90 isn't all that uncommon. You know, being that our life expectancy in modern America is nearly fucking twice that of Roman citizens in the midle east circa 30 AD.

Amusingly, I;ve had almost exactly the experience CS described in his ghost scenario. Around a decade ago, I was quite convinced of the existence of ghosts, astral projection, "auras," and all manner of other nonsense.I believed these things because I saw them.And that, right there, is why the individual human brain is untrustworthy. Confirmation bias and false pattern recognition ruin everything.I saw "auras." I still can - and so can basically anyone else. Stare at a person against a solid background with your eyes unfocused for a minute or two and you'll see the "aura," which is nothing more than an afterimage produced as your eyes move slightly. If you're looking for an "aura," you'll find one.I took photographs and saw things that I could not directly explain that I immediately attributed to ghosts and demons. Shadowy, foggy pictures where there was no fog; a "feeling" of a "presence" corroborated by other individuals and an aberrant "light" on a photograph along a dark path in the woods well known for past trauma (in this case, sexual assaults).I even saw a dark shadow directly "attack" a person.Part of what broke me out of it? We were all convinced that there was a "malevolent presence" in a crypt in a nearby cemetery. All of us "felt" it.Then one day, we saw the crypt with the lights on. The lights were inside the crypt...because it wasn't a crypt at all. It was a storage room for the groundskeeper.Is it reasonable for a person to believe their own eyes? Somewhat. But even with regards to our own senses, we need to remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My beliefs were nothing more than the recognition of patterns that didn't, the validating influence of a like-minded group, and our collective confirmation bias. Not a bit of it was real.I'll admit, a belief based on those sorts of things (which I think very closely matches religious belief) is different from basic blind faith. There is at least some personal experience behind it.But it still traces back to a blind faith belief that (insert religious text here) is authoritative; the beliefs of the religion are what is projected onto the observed events, just as I automatically attributed every unexplained phenomenon and "feeling" to ghosts without any rational reason for doing so.

I think that's a poor way to define "objective." It means any claim of fact boils down to an appeal to popularity, and it would also mean (as written) that if sufficient people agree that blue is superior to red, then blue is "objectively" the superior color.It's true that each of us experiences the world individually, and thus subjectively. However, many of those experiences are the result of realities that appear to be independent of the observer. We determine this by comparing our individual subjective experiences, but it's not simply a matter of "we all agree that there is a building here, therefore the building's existence is objective." Disagreement that the building exists, for instance, does not stop us from taking pictures of it, or even going inside. Whether most people agree that I have two cats or not, my cats exist independent of prevailing opinion and continue to eat surprising amounts of food. Shared subjective experiences, however, still allow for considering mass hallucinations and just plain being wrong (see: flat Earth, Creationism, etc) to be considered "objective" when they are nothing of the sort.So while we do share subjective experiences of objective reality, you cannot simply say that subjective experiences are objective simply because of "widespread agreement." Objective reality consists of that which exists independent of the observer; widespread agreement is not required.