Amazing people of amazing faith, who believe so very much!

Hi Buz, Can you outline a couple of these creation theories, keeping in mind what a theory is of course. But no one is presenting a hypothesis about whether he lived or not, the 'unprovable' aspect in relation to history is applied to the events of his life.Take recent events as an example. No one is arguing whether Tony Blair is a real person or not, but they are certainly hypothesising over his motives for siding with Bush over the whole Iraq affair. Does he believe there are WMD's, is he more interested in the oil, is he more interested in trade with America, does he hate Saddam, this is what the 'unprovable' things are.Now whether some people lived or not can be unprovable, they may have existed in the distant past and there may not be reliable evidence to support their existence. Take Siddartha Gautama, is there good evidence that he existed? Some people would say yes, some would say no, a Buddhist of course would say that it doesn't matter if he was real or not. But there is no direct evidence for the original Buddha, there are copies of texts he was supposed to have dictated, but who knows for sure?Historians collect a pool of evidence from a variety of sources, then they present a hypothesis to explain their stance, if this hypothesis is strongest hypothesis there is then that hypothesis becomes a theory, this theory will stand as the best explanation until a stronger hypothesis comes a long and replaces it as 'the' theory. And don't you forget that most of the 'theories' that people use the Bible to support have been obliterated. For example, the Bible claims that the Israelites settled in Palestine after Joshua's armies 'utterly destroyed' the inhabitants of all the cities, towns, and villages there, this 'theory' has now been replaced by a much much stronger theory, that the Israelites emerged from Palestinian society. This is actually a good example of how a historical theory cannot be proven, because some people claimed (W. Albright for example) that the destruction levels in some Palestinian cities 'proved' the Bible's account of the Conquest, but nowadays this is totally rejected, so how could the Bible's conquest narrative have been 'proved' if it is now disproven?Brian.

Brian I do not have the time nor desire to get into specific stuff not directly refuting or supporting positions expressed. My statements speak for themselves and nothing in your post either refutes or supports them specifically. This's what leads us off topic.

I've went back and reread it all, Percy and I guess the following exchange is what set you off:
Buz:
"Is not all theory unproven theory? Yes or no? If yes, then where's the beef? "Percy:
"Then why, if you know this so well, in Message 20 did you say this, and I quote it in full because it makes clear that you're singling evolution out for criticism as being unproven theory, not all science:"Buz message 20:
"The evidence for evolution remains as unproven theory. Regardless of how much evidence scientists can codger up in the few centuries of their search, there's a whole lota faith involved in using this miniscule dot of time to build a history of billions of years, in spite of how much weight one wishes to credit dating methods for. There's simply no established proven evidence for each of the billions of unusual and unlikely combinations of things to explain each of these billions of steps of what it would take to form a person. Remember, we're talking people with all of the thousands of intricate systems and functions of the brain, electrical and nervous system, the digestive system, sex, conception, birth, DNA, emotions like love, hate, senses of see smell, hear, on and on we go. How the dickens can you people come up with enough evidence to explain all this in humans, all without intelligence, design or planning, let alone all the billions of other organisms, etc, etc. Man, I'm not that dumb -- I can fix my own watch, my car, my appliances, but to design and get one of these things up and running from scratch would be a big deal even with intelligence. It would take a whole lota faith and big, big time luck just to come up with the very simplest of anything living, let alone billions more of progressively more intricate happenings, all driven by NS, all happening simultaneously so as to show up together on one planet and no regressions. No, you people are the faith-full ones. Clunks of inanimate pieces of mineral never ever could become able to love, create, think, write poetry, cry and laugh by unintelligent NS. That's nuts to us of little faith who know it was all planned, designed and put in place by super intelligence that makes our itty bitty minds look awfully small."I guess I needed to address your need for me to include all science with evolution as being unproven theory. I misstakenly focused in on the evolution as being unproven theory rather than your need for me to hone in on science also being unproven theory. I guess I would just assume that if I said toe was unproven theory, you should assume that I would also consider other origin based science to be also. I've quite sure I've made statements, using the word "science" that would imply that science is on the same footing as toe since toe is about science.In my opening post the topic was about toe vs creationism in relation to faith. About all the whole thread was in that vein. I didn't know that I would be expected to address other science in the thread to make it acceptable to you.Am I still making no sense to you and irritating you further? Maybe I need to just shut up and move on. All I can say is my appologies for irritating you. Take it for what it's worth. G'nite.

Then it's not really faith, per se, is it? Which kind of gets back to the point - the only way you can accuse scientists of acting out of faith is by stretching the meaning of "faith" to be absolutely meaningless. But it would have to be - a "faith" based on the evidence needs must change as new evidence comes to light.You're equivocating "tentativity" and "faith". These are things that most people don't think are the same. I really find it surprising that you think they are. Well, to tell you the truth, I'm probably your textbook arrogant young atheist. Pray away, if you like. I'm much more content than I ever was as a believer.

Buz, History isn't evidence, empirical or otherwise. It consists of events inferred from empirical evidence, a bit like a scientific theory. Evolution may have evidence supporting it but the theory isn't evidence of itself.If you want to support biblical teaching with corroborating evidence you'll need empirical evidence independent of the bible. The religious text saying "God is black" 500,000 times isn't particularly compelling when there is no reason to accept that texts validity. Hence the requirement for independent evidence.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

No, Buzz, what "set me off" is your dishonest attempts to rewrite post history. I have no need beyond honesty. You characterized evolution as distinct from the rest of science because it is unproven, and then you denied that you did this it at length across many posts. You still believe evolution is distinct from science because it is unproven, as you just said this: To quote Mark, "Oh my personal GOD!" First you say you understand all theory in science is unproven, though we all know you're just saying that because you're trying to show people you weren't really wrong, and then you prove you actually still hold this misunderstanding when you try to apply the term unproven theory to just the "origin based sciences."Buzz, please get it through your head - ALL THEORY IN ALL BRANCHES OF SCIENCE IS TENTATIVE! That includes evolution and physics. That includes biology and chemistry. Please stop believing you can fool people into believing your old messages reflect this understanding. Please stop fooling yourself that they do, I guess that's the first step. Stop trying to comfort yourself that unreasonable burdens are being placed upon you, because they're not. You're not expected to address other science, and you're not expected to make your posts "acceptable to me." Your expected to follow the guidelines and discuss topics in an honest and forthright manner. You're just pulling your little misdirection thing again in claiming that I'm taking you to task for misunderstanding the nature of theory. I'm not. I see this misunderstanding every day, I'm used to it. I'm outraged because you stated your misunderstanding, and when called on it have ever since been claiming that you don't misunderstand it, and that your messages actually show you don't misunderstand it. And I'm really, really outraged that you hold us here in such low esteem that you think we would be convinced by such twaddle. And I'm outraged that you're wasting my time making your extended spurious defenses.Here's why you should never take this tack again:

1. If evolution shouldn't be relied upon because it is just unproven theory, then physics should also not be relied upon because it is also unproven theory, nor any other branch of science.
   ​
2. By the same token, if it is true that we accept evolution based upon faith, then it must also be true that we accept physics based upon faith. If this broader argument is actually your point then you need to be discussing the role of faith in science, not just evolution.
   ​
3. Referring to evolution as unproven theory is an extremely common Creationist tactic targeted at the scientific illiterata to make it seem that evolution is different from other theories of science in being unproven. Stop believing that there's some effective argument hidden in this fallacy - there isn't.

--Percy

Born2Preach:Personal faith is personal faith. I liked what you said about people believing based on personal evidence. You are right that everyone believes based on a certain subjective standard of evidence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. We all order our worlds differently and some people call things by different words.I think the point is that I can say I don't believe in erosion. No erosion, it never happens. I have never seen erosion happening and I have no PERSONAL evidence for its existence. I think you will agree with me that this does not mean there has never been erosion. Why is this true? What do we know and how do we know it that makes my own personal, subject standard of evidence irrelevant?Conversely, I can tell you that I believe in God. I have acquired the certain amount of evidence I have needed based on observations of the world. I believe in God specifically because at one moment when I most needed it, I found a penny on the ground while exiting a showing of "12 Angry Men". That was evidence enough to me. Would finding a penny on the ground after seeing a wonderful movie be evidence enough for everyone? No. It definately would not. So how is my own personal evidence here relevant to anyone else but myself? Besides the fact that I can tell people "I felt a divine influence over the world when I found a penny" what can they learn from this other than what *I* consider to be "enough evidence to show the existence of God"While people do demand a certain amount of evidence to justify their personal subjective belief systems, it is an entirely different type of evidence than the evidence science requires to back-up a theory. They are VASTLY difference because one is repeatable and can be tested for its veracity while the other can only be told and re-told to willing listeners and nothing else can be done with it.Evolution is NOT based on faith but on evidence.

As I pointed out, Percy, if you re-read my opening post, I believe my topic was the faith factor in the toe/creation debate. I had not intended to broaden the topic to other sciences. My purpose was to delve into the faith factor or lack thereof in the toe/creation debate. I would think that some of the same arguments pro or con for toe would also by implication appy to some of the other sciences, but not all. If some wish to discuss the other sciences, I should think that these would be better addressed in another thread. Possibly I should have made that more clear in my opening post, or is it that I should have broadened it in the first place?

Future events that are prophesied, if and when fulfilled become history. Therefore, history becomes empirical evidence for the validity of any given prophecy.

Buz:"The more solid, believable, genuine and legitimate faith is that which is based on the religion of the most evidence of validity."Crashy:"Then it's not really faith, per se, is it? Which kind of gets back to the point - the only way you can accuse scientists of acting out of faith is by stretching the meaning of "faith" to be absolutely meaningless."I'd say there is an element of faith/belief in any given theory/doctrine but that the more evidence one has to support that faith, the less faith becomes necessary to believe it. Remember the analogy of the steps. Must I repeat it? The word faith is used a lot in the broad sense as with the steps. The sounder the evidence for the structuring and stability one sees in the steps one is about to step upon, the more faith one has in the steps. Is that concept hard for you to accept, Crashy?

Buzsaw, I would agree, but that's not what we're talking about.You are trying to support biblical validity by providing corroborating evidence in the form of Matthew, Mark & Luke witnessing prophecies by Jesus. The problem with this is that it is a circular argument; you must accept the validity of the bible before you can accept its own texts as evidence of biblical validity. Hence the need for independent verification.We don't have any empirical evidence for the existences of Matthew, Mark, & Luke at all, let alone that they witnessed a prophecy being made by someone else that there isn't reliable evidence for isn't particularly awe inspiring, is it?Therefore the corroborating evidence in favour of evolution is logically valid, & that for the existence of a prophecy made by Jesus isn't.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Only because your apparent definition of "faith" is at odds with what most people take it to mean, re your example: No. The more evidence you have about the stability of the steps, the more trust one can place in them. But the less evidence one has about the steps, the more faith is required to step upon them.We're arguing about what words mean, I guess. When quantum mechanics was first proposed, there were plenty of aspects that were unobservable at the time. Did scientists trust that those entities would be observed in time? Sure. And they were. (In fact the theory was so accurate it was like hitting a bulls-eye the size of a quarter with a gun you shot from somewhere on the Moon.)Does that trust in theory consitute "faith"? Not by what faith means to the majority of believers. If it does consitute faith by your own narrow, unique definition, I guess that's fine. But word re-definition is not condusive to intelligent debate.

Crashy, I guess if you can't accept that a common usage of the word faith applies to a lot more than religion, we'll have to leave it at that and go on. I've said it, you've said it and about everyone at some time have said things like, "I don't have much faith in this person or that thing," using the word in the sense of trust and confidence.That's the sense in which this thread was intended, with both creationism and toe. As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm not positing that toe is a religion or is religious. I'm tired of hearing things like creationism is based on fairy tales, myths and blind faith, implying that we creationists are fools. This thread is intended to dispell that falacy.

I didn't say it was all blind faith as my most of my adversaries are claiming creationism and the supernatural to be. My point is that there's an element of the faith factor in anything that is not proven, more or less, depending on the supporting evidence or lack thereof. As a creationist, I respectfully disagree with you and believe you have total disregard to what we consider to be empirical evidence for the supernatural we creationists believe we have and have furnished in various forums in the past.

Buzsaw, So what's your point if you accept religious faith & "science faith" mean different things? The FACT is that you actually deliberately use one meaning of faith in your opening post in a half arsed attempt to show evolution = religion because they both require faith.More of that revisionist crap? You are beginning to look silly.The FACT is that science doesn't require faith at all, with any meaning of the word. All it requires is the acceptance that there be a best explanation of the facts at any one time. Faith, as in your kind of faith, ie the meaning you use in post one, requires that you believe despite that there is a better more evidentially sound explanation.You seem to be of the mind that scientists have to throw themselves at a theory & embrace it 100% no matter what, when in fact, all things being equal they "embrace" it to the level that the level of evidential support warrants & no more. Hence no faith.No scientist has faith that electrons exist. They accept the overwhelming evidence for their existence, & accept that the chance that they don't exist is fairly low. This is an objective evidence based view & is utterly & completely without faith. That would be an oxymoron, right? The words "empirical", "supernatural, & "belief" all in the same sentence? I respectfully point out the possibility that you have no idea what logically valid empirical evidence is.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-04-2004]