Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

I agree it's not important to the claim of creationists. I was just trying to work toward some definition of "faith" that could be applied generically.But I will pursue this idea elsewhere.

commike:I'm sorry to butt in here, and I don't want to make you feel like you're being gang-tackled, but I've seen the following so many times from so many different creationists that I have to ask what your intention is: It's fairly easy IMO to claim something is debateable. It is entirely another thing to be able to say why it's debateable (or for that matter, what aspect is debateable). If you're unwilling or unable to get into the specifics of the case, why did you bring it up? EVERYTHING in science is debateable - it's the nature of the beast. However, it is literally impossible to take a question seriously if we CAN'T get into specifics. If, as you imply, something is wrong with say, radiometric dating, or the amount of salt present in seawater, or basically any other specific element in any scientific discipline, we can't even begin to address the issue without getting into the details. Otherwise it's simply bare assertion, and in fact equivalent to taking the assertion on faith alone. Ever hear the old saw, "the devil is in the details"? This is how science operates. I would suggest that if you are serious about calling aspects of the ToE into question, it is a fundamental requirement that you be willing to discuss those details.Just my ten kopeks.

Yes, and I gave some examples of why dating is debatable. But then, RAZD called me for being off-topic. If I don't give specifics, I get called for lack of evidence. It feels like the rules are being twisted so I can't accomplish much at all without being called for something. Yes, the devil is in the details, and there are a lot of details that still must be resolved. Until then, it is necessary to put faith in evolution.

quote:

---

Yes, and I gave some examples of why dating is debatable. But then, RAZD called me for being off-topic. If I don't give specifics, I get called for lack of evidence. It feels like the rules are being twisted so I can't accomplish much at all without being called for something.

---

No you are asked to go to the correct forum to discuss those issues.Do you want to discuss them in the correct forums or do you want to redraw your claims? I for one would like another creationist to take a run at the salt claims.

Is there some rule that prohibits you from participating in more than one thread at a time? We'd love to discuss the specifics of radiometric dating with you; we just shouldn't do it in this thread.I don't understand what you feel is persecutorial about that.

quote:

---

Yes, and I gave some examples of why dating is debatable.

---

But not in enough detail to either support or falsify any claims.

quote:

---

But then, RAZD called me for being off-topic. If I don't give specifics, I get called for lack of evidence.

---

You were off topic and you did not back up your claims. Do we really have to give you a play by play on how both can be solved? We have already given you links to the appropriate threads so you can back up your claims and stay on topic. Is it really that hard?

quote:

---

It feels like the rules are being twisted so I can't accomplish much at all without being called for something.

---

Which rules are we twisting? The rules state that threads should stay on topic and that assertions should be supported by evidence. Both can be accomplished if you participate in one of the dating threads already given to you. Either back up your claims or retract them.

Have you not been paying any attention to what I'm getting at? These claims are supposed to show to support and falsify claims. They merely show that evolutin isn't as "true" as we may think. It too has complications. To consider evolution to be on the right track, you need to put faith in this theory. Well, if you want to get other topics involved in this topic, then I'll take that step. The fact that so many claims about evolution have been debatable and unsure (as demonstrated by many of these topics) offers evidence that it takes faith to believe in evolution.Everybody take note: THIS TOPIC IS NOT FOR PROVING OR DISPROVING EVOLUTION. IT IS MERELY TO ANALYZE THE ROLE OF FAITH IN BELIEVING EVOLUTION.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-20-2005 18:20 AM

quote:

---

Have you not been paying any attention to what I'm getting at? These claims are supposed to show to support and falsify claims. They merely show that evolutin isn't as "true" as we may think. It too has complications. To consider evolution to be on the right track, you need to put faith in this theory

---

What you claimed in mssg 139 is: How am I supposed to judge the veracity of these claims with this level of detail?RAZD, in mssg 145, said: So will we see you at the {{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}} thread? I doubt it, but if you really think that dating techniques you need to go to that thread and learn that they have been debated and found to be reliable.

quote:

---

Well, if you want to get other topics involved in this topic, then I'll take that step.

---

I don't want to bring dating into this topic. I explicitly said "We have already given you links to the appropriate threads so you can back up your claims and stay on topic." So, see you at the age correlations thread?

quote:

---

The fact that so many claims about evolution have been debatable and unsure (as demonstrated by many of these topics) offers evidence that it takes faith to believe in evolution.

---

The only people I have seen claiming that evolution is "unsure" are fundamentalist christians who have an axe to grind. The actual world of science and scientists have no problems with the theory as it stands. So I guess the only problems that evolution has is that it conflicts with some people's religious convictions.Unless you can demonstrate that a majority, or even a significant minority, of biologists are apprehensive with the theory of evolution then your claims are not supported.

But if the "complications" you've mentioned aren't, in fact, problems for evolution, then faith isn't required.Don't you understand what we're trying to do? Anything can be debated. The fact that these "complications" you refer to aren't in fact problems for evolutionary theory means that no faith is required to believe in the theory. If you can't see how those are the same subject, then you have no buisness being in this thread. The only things it takes faith to acccept are those things contradicted by the evidence, or for which there is a lack of evidence. That which is supported fully by the evidence takes no faith to accept.

No. What I am asking you to do is either be willing to discuss the details in the appropriate thread/forum OR stop making utterly unsupported statements like "dating methods are debatable" or "there isn't enough salt in the sea". One of the key differences between this website and places like ChristianForums is that here you aren't permitted to make bald assertions without being willing to back them up. That's what everybody is on your case about. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up (not literally, but "shut up" in the case of trying to cast aspersions on a scientific theory without the guts or willingness to document and argue your case.)That's all I think anyone's asking you for: either stop with the one-offs against evolution or argue the case in the appropriate thread.

Hi Commike37,Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Several people already replied saying somewhat the same things I would have said, so I saw no need to be repetitive, but now that I have a brief period of spare time I thought I'd respond to this: I was speaking in the context of the type of objections you were raising, like your list evolutionary "problems". There is no evidence supporting the first three, and the last two non sequiturs.But even if we expand the context, Creationist ideas still have very little evidence, almost none. About the best Creationists can do is make shallow misinterpretations of existing evidence. For example, Creationists claim fossil layers are evidence of the Great Flood, but it can only look that way to those who are careful to ignore what flood layers really look like, the fossil ordering, radiometric dating, and basic geological principles.Your goal is to show that evolution is accepted by way of faith rather than evidence, but this seems quixotic given the wealth of evidence evolutionists can cite. And no one here thinks evolution represents "truth", not in the sense that you mean it. We only think evolution is an accurate reflection of the data it purports to explain. Theories aren't "truth" handed down from on high. Theories are merely our best attempt to make sense of the natural world.Many claim that there is a greater knowledge, a greater truth, if you will, that stands above science, and I not only don't dispute this view, I agree with it. But science is not involved in the search for these greater spirtual truths. It has the much more mundane task of trying to understand the natural, physical world.--Percy