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 [Î¡Ï‰Î¼Î±Î¹Î¿Ï…Ï‚ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
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.
I don't understand. You agree that evolution is based on evidence, which means evolution is not based on faith. But then you say that the "conclusion" is based on faith.
So if someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of evidence, their conclusions are based on faith?
The definition of faith, once again, is a belief bot based on evidence. You agree that evolution is based on evidence, though you disagree with the interpretation of that evidence.
While your disagreement itself is a topic for a different thread, how can you rationally say that a conclusion based on evidence is based on faith when faith is defined as a belief not based on evidence? Your statement is contradictory.
That is like saying.. "I believe there are fossils when there are no fossils" This is not what I am saying at all.
It most certainly sounds like it. Your statement boils down to "Evolution is based on evidence, not faith, but I believe evolution is still based on faith. That's my opinion."
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 [Î¡Ï‰Î¼Î±Î¹Î¿Ï…Ï‚ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
Someone who examines the evidence and arrives at erroneous conclusions is wrong, not faith-driven. Your position is the same rhetorical argument we've seen time and again from creationists, basically just a shell game with word definitions.
When Rahvin says your opinion means less than nothing, that's shorthand for, "In a scientific discussion based upon evidence, unsupported opinion means nothing."
quote: 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.
No, it's not a difference in assumptions about the world. It's a difference in the assumptions about how to get to the truth. Creationism follows the path of religious apologetics. Start with conclusions and try to defend them. But it is bad apologetics, which doesn't take into account consistency or properly investigating the facts or even honesty. Creationism not only isn't based on evidence, it doesn't even accept the value of evidence, when it points in a direction creationists don't like. Creationists are notorious for misrepresentation, for repeating falsified arguments - and for attacking opponents.
Just look at the ID movement. For all its claims to be more scientific than previous creationist efforts it's reduced to inventing claims of persecution and invoking the Nazis in a big guilt-by-association smear. So much for evidence !
Science starts with the evidence. Evolution wasn't a "revelation" - it was a conclusion, an explanatory model. Science is all about building up a consistent picture of the world. Amd that is why science has succeeded where creationism fails.
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?
It's not even a matter of disagreeing with their conclusions - I've never seen any objective evidence proposed in favor of Creationism. I'd very much appreciate it if you started another thread if you actually have some.
I have seem a great many arguments that purport to show how Creationism is based on evidence, but when it came down to it, the Creationists reverted to quoting the Bible rather than following evidence. Their arguemnts typically consisted of arguments from ignorance, drastic leaps in logic, and outright falsehoods based entirely on their interpretation of the Bible rather than any objective examination of observable evidence.
But then, even if someone examines evidence and says "this evidence supports Creationisn," then that person is not basing their belief on faith (assuming their interpretation of the evidence is not also based solely on their interpretation of the Bible). That person's beliefs would in fact be based on evidence and not faith...they would simply be wrong.
I don't claim that everyone I disagree with is basing their opinions on faith. I make that claim only when a person fails to support their position with evidence. In cases of disagreement where both sides back up their assertions with objective evidence, one or both parties are simply wrong to varying degrees in their interpretation.
Again, faith is a belief not based on evidence. That doesn't mean that all beliefs that are not based on faith are correct. Neither does it mean that all incorrect beliefs are based on faith. This may in fact be the root cause for people who equate science and faith - they see that science is considered "correct" becasue it is based on evidence, while faith is considered "wrong" becasue it is not, and they seek to equate the two so that faith can be "correct." But science isn't really about "correct vs incorrect." It's about accuracy.
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.
Which means that one of us in incorrect in our interpretation of that evidence, but neither of our beliefs are based on faith...unless your interpretation of the evidence is defined not by the evidence alone but rather by your interpretation of a religious text.
The "world view" of the scientist is not based on faith, either antiLIE. Naturalistic explanations with a high degree of accuracy have been found for nearly every phenomenon we have encountered. It is a reasonable logical inference from that fact to say that it is likely that naturalistic explanations exist for other phenomenon. If a naturalistic explanation is found for an observed process, and the explanation makes specific, solid predictions that have an incredibly high degree of accuracy, then using the naturalistic explanation does not involve faith. We've been over this point before in this thread - naturalism is not based on faith, but rather is based on the fact that so far naturalism has worked, and we have determined naturalistic models of reality that function with a very high degree of accuracy.
The "world view" of the Creationist, however, is not based on a history of accuracy. It's based on the unfounded belief that an old set of books is literally true. Nearly all of its predictions (a global flood, all of Exodus, 6-day Creation, a young Earth) have been soundly disproven, some of them long before Darwin was ever on the scene (no age for the Earth younger than millions of years has been seriously considered since over a century before Darwin was born). This is a belief based on faith.
Now, if you and I were to examine a corpse, observe a wound, and disagree over whether the wound was caused by a gunshot or a knife, neither conclusion would be based on faith - they are conclusions based on the evidence.
But if we find a bullet inside of the wound, the shape of the wound is consistent with a gunshot, there is no knife present, and there is a man with a still smoking gun standing in the next room being arested by the police who admits to shooting him, and you still insist that the wound was caused by a knife becasue you have a book that says all wounds found on murder victims are the result of a stabbing...your position is no longer supported by any objective evidence, and instead is based on your subjective faith in your book.
This is analogous to evolution. If the evidence works to a high degree of accuracy for both Creationism and evolution, then one or both of us are simply wrong and neither belief is based on faith. But if evolution makes highly accurate predictions and Creationism does not, continued insistence that Creationism is correct becasue of your Biblical worldview is a belief based on faith, as your "interpretation of the evidence" has gone beyond "wrong" and into the realm of blind faith.
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 [Î¡Ï‰Î¼Î±Î¹Î¿Ï…Ï‚ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
wow... seriously. you make a great case Rahvin. You analagies are great. The gun knife thing.. very well done. I really apreciate your rebuttle because it is not blasting me nor falling victim to any fallacies in the art of debate.
Thank you. And I apologize as it seems you've taken some of my posts to be "blasting you." I don't intend to insult people directly when I post, but I also don't take pains to avoid it, so I apologize for unintentional offense. Any venom I convey is directed towards the argument my opponent is making (though there are admittedly a few people who make me...cranky).
Of course I do not agree with some of it. but that is not the point... Well done. [not being sarcastic]
With what do you disagree, and why?
Again, I'm not trying to be insulting, but simply saying "I disagree" without providing the reason you disagree is not debate. If you say "the sky is blue" and I respond "I disagree," you're likely to think I'm nuts, or at the very least wrong...even if I'm simply in a timezone where the sun is setting and the sky is actually pink.
Currently, we have established a large pile of examples of the evidence upon which evolution is based. We've agreed that science is based on evidence and not faith, and we've now gone over why "naturalistic worldviews" are not related to faith.
What exactly are you disagreeing with? More importaintly, what is your reason to disagree, as opinion with no rational explanation is nothing more than a bare assertion.
What I disagree with is irrelevant to this thread. LOL let me explain
â™¦ 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
â™¦ I disagree with the ToE. (that is why i didn't say what I disagreed with, it wasn't relevant to the thread)
I'll repeat: unfortunately for you, what you disagree with has no influence on reality, just your ignorance (as in lack of knowledge, curable, or your refusal to learn, less curable): nature is remarkably unimpressed with your opinion.
This is not the first time you've said this, but you keep dropping from discussions because it is not on topic (or some other excuse).
Why not start a topic on why you disagree with ToE, and in the process provide (a) what you think it is and (b) why you disagree with it.
Otherwise you just appear to be one more creationist spouting assertions and avoiding evidence.
Note that most threads are closed when they reach 300 posts, so we can expect this one to be closed soon, and this would make it a good time to start a new thread to focus on YOUR view.
For the record: faith is based on a lack of evidence or it would not be faith, science is founded first on evidence, and as such can not be the same as faith. Where most people get confused is on the issue of the truth of theory.
In faith things are accepted as true because of belief, regardless of evidence. With faith you can believe falsehoods.
In theory things are presumed to be true so long as they are not invalidated, but it is always a tentative position, and that tentativeness is lacking in faith. In science once a concept is falsified it is discarded.
Edited by RAZD, : added topic summary and subtitle
We're past the 300 message limit (obviously not a hard limit). I'd like to encourage someone to propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics to continue the discussion, but slanted toward the current focus.