|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:40:09 PM | athiests, evolutionists, and scientists have the market cornered on reason.
after all, it is very reasonable to asume we are all built from NOTHING but goofups, which had no reason to show up at all. lots of reasoning and logic there.
there is no proof.
but you will keep saying it that there is.
it doesn't help to pick on the contributors.
I'm smiling and nodding. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:26:21 PM | | its totally irrational to give most of evolutionary credit to something that is nothing but a WHOLE bunch of errors, showing up on time, one after the other. [in between all of the other goofups, mutations]. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:50:00 PM |
Do you need faith to believe in science ? The answer is no. Whether you have faith or not changes nothing. The evidence is expected to change and modify the conclusions. If it doesn't then the conclusions stay the same
You obvisouly miss the debat about faith. Reality is always something that is not totally grasped. Who could? To provide simple questions and answers does a disrespect to the question.
For instance as a constant rebuttal of the faithful, they will respond not in how we are here, but why in lieu of the how. The combination of the scientific knowledges does not and cannot approach this question. I think mona may not see reason and cannot apply reason, but the question of why is the essence of the debate. It is not unreasonable to believe that we exist for a reason and that reason has been predisposed. You do injustice to the debate as does she.
To define reason as only what experience and so experiment as given as the answer neglects to consider the aspect of the subject in relation to the experience. It is not irrational to be of a religious faith and it is rational to completly disregard religious faith (which more should if they would take the time). The viewpoints still root faith in a relation of rationality and irrationality. I was hoping that debate would move beyond that, but obviously that is to troublesome. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:54:07 PM |
showing up on time
ON TIME?
According to what schedule?
Mull that over. Post hoc fallacy.
The outcomes appear when they appear, whether 100 million years ago or 200 million years into the future, the results will ALWAYS appear "on time"! | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 12:47:08 AM |
You obvisouly miss the debat about faith. Reality is always something that is not totally grasped. Who could? To provide simple questions and answers does a disrespect to the question.
For instance as a constant rebuttal of the faithful, they will respond not in how we are here, but why in lieu of the how. The combination of the scientific knowledges does not and cannot approach this question. I think mona may not see reason and cannot apply reason, but the question of why is the essence of the debate. It is not unreasonable to believe that we exist for a reason and that reason has been predisposed. You do injustice to the debate as does she.
To define reason as only what experience and so experiment as given as the answer neglects to consider the aspect of the subject in relation to the experience. It is not irrational to be of a religious faith and it is rational to completly disregard religious faith (which more should if they would take the time). The viewpoints still root faith in a relation of rationality and irrationality. I was hoping that debate would move beyond that, but obviously that is to troublesome.
What ?
Religious faith requires a complete abandonment of logic , reason , and rational thinking. If the bible tells its followers that airplanes can't exist and I take a few of them up in one , they move the goalposts and instead of admitting that , well d'uh , obviously planes exist and work just fine , the problem is that reality is wrong. Sigh....
Why do we have to be here for a purpose ? Nothing wrong with speculating I suppose but wouldn't a little evidence be in order before basing our lives on the notion that this is all part of some plan ? Really now...what evidence is there ? The ONLY thing that acts as evidence is a book that is logically unsound , self-contradictory , historically inaccurate , entirely unsupported , and full of amazing , entirely implausible (if not plainly impossible) claims. THAT'S what the faithful need for their 'evidence'. That's not evidence at all. There's very little evidence that supports any claims in the bible and of the few that are supported , it's mostly just vaguely related to some even more nebulous historical claims made in the bible.
This question has involved the religious because they keep on insisting that their nonsense fits in well with science. It doesn't. When they don't like the answers that science provides , they will stop at nothing to supress it. They went after Coppernicus and Galileo to suppress their observations and they weren't even contradicting anything that was actually said in the bible. It's the religious who require faith in their beliefs...not the scientific. The scientific don't have any emotional attachment to their conclusions. They simply hope they're right and whether they can give up their hopes or not matters little. If they're wrong , sooner or later science will show it. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:55:07 AM | my 2ยข
we have two hemispheres in the construction of our brains
we think rationally and rely on faith that our other side will not go too far away from that.
it takes faith to believe in anything when we are these two brained creatures we call humans.
The pure scientific world is only half of our existence and anyone who thinks differently is a fool and has not researched the human brain very well.
your life is only the perception of your life and nothing else really matters
you need faith for that perception to be successful in science or religion or lack of both.
[faith that you will wake up tomorrow and be rational and not dysfunctional]
 | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:11:26 AM |
Appeal to authority here? So what. Darwin mentioned a "Creator" in Origin of Species. He was surrounded by Creationists. I guess it might have been better PR to at least give grudging nod to popular belief.
obviously, you spoke with Darwin concerning this ... or could your "guess" perhaps be wrong? or perhaps your "guess" is right. As for me, i prefer to take a person at their word, and not assume i know their thoughts behind their words.
in reality, it doesn't matter what Darwin (or you or i for that matter) think. I used Darwin's quote as an example to illustrate there are many forms of "creationism". | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:16:59 AM | I enjoy seeing the anti-science crowd try desperately to convince us that accepting science is faith. As though the idea of trusting the observations we make through our senses requires as much faith as it takes to accept a scriptural book packed with lies, contradictions, fairy tales, and magic people. If you believe what your eyes tell you then you may as well believe ridiculous religious dogma right?
Wrong. Sorry.
I can understand people having faith in areas where there is no evidence either way. But when you have faith in something where there is tons of evidence pointing somewhere else, that isn't faith. Ignorance, delusion, and stupidity- yes - but it isn't faith. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:10:27 AM |
The pure scientific world is only half of our existence and anyone who thinks differently is a fool and has not researched the human brain very well.
ahhhh, thank you thorb! you have restored "my" faith .... i shall now slip back into the jungle from which i came. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 7:19:43 PM | ^^ yes .. and that single consciousness is not strictly rational ... and needs faith.
Your little split brain experiment has no bering on what I said or shows any proof against it. Its just one little aspest of a broken brain. Nothing to do with the two sides workings and how they work together. Your science is left brained. The right is full of faith. Live with it.
you are fooling yourself if you think you don't need and use that faith
you hit on the duality of the word faith ... and bitched about it but must learn to live with that too
I love the workings of science but recognize the faith needed to believe ... in anything outside of my own thought [basic philosophy 101]
its a fools argument that there is no faith in science ... its not the same level as a religious faith but still some exists.... even if that is only the faith that science will continue to advance and not fall into another dark ages. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 7:27:56 PM | | hi... science has replaced Creator God with the god of measurement.... it is a very narrowed vision to only believe in that which can be scientifically measured... we can measure things now that we previously thought did not exist... so it is with God.. unless you invite the experience, God will not exist to you... God Reveals Himself to us when we open up the Channels of Communication with Him... when we open the bible in sincerity, God begins to Teach us of Himself... we were once closed and narrow minded towards God, now we are open enough to see things beyond our former teachings, beliefs, culture and traditions... we see God in The Measure that He Himself Presents to us... if you do not know God it is because you do not want to know God otherwise you would be exercising your free will and communicating to Him through prayer or being taught by Him through His Written Word... the fact of the matter is that God Exists and one day God will Reveal Himself to everyone... some will greet Him like a Father :) others will run from the Measure of His Wrath and Indignation<<<(crazy choice)... blessings | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/7/2009 11:44:26 PM |
Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"?
Because it will benefit their cause. It's a matter of authority. At the moment, for the most part, the world is seen through, and measured by the tools of science. Science is in a sense the authority on right and wrong. If science requires faith, then a creationist can argue that the truths of science are no better than the truths of creationism. Ultimately creationists want to say that if you believe in science, you have no good reason NOT to believe THEIR stories/claims/views/perspectives because both, science and creationist require faith. Their goal is to take away (undermine) the authority of science and make it their own so that they have the final word on important matters. They can only pull this stunt off with a slight of hand as their argument is extremely weak.
Intelligent people realize that even if science requires faith, creationists have no good reason to claim their truths are better than those of science. At best, scientific truths are as good as those of creationism. And even if we grand them that much, one can argue that since science is more useful than creationism we should continue practicing science and not bother with creationism. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/8/2009 1:12:27 PM | I believe we were created by something, do I now automatically have some kind of a cause?
I don't give a rats azz what you believe.
thats why I don't get personal with you guys.
don't know how much more of this personal BS I can take.
guess we will see.
I had fun learning about that querky evolutionary fairy tale, don't know why you guys have such week egoes, that you have to get personal.
I repeat myself on many ocasions, also, because I don't get a satisfactory answer.
frogo,
you say those neutral mutations turn into useful stuff for later use with other mutations.
thats totally impossible, because those, at the time, useless mutations, don't have a reason for anything.
how could they possibly link up with other mistakes to form a complicated function?
they would have to be VERY specific mutations.
thats even more unlikely then having one good one show up in the first place.
haven't read anything about that long shot.
some more loaded dice? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/8/2009 2:15:36 PM | It's a matter of authority. At the moment, for the most part, the world is seen through, and measured by the tools of science. Science is in a sense the authority on right and wrong.
I think that this is an accurate assessment, however I would restate it in this way: "Science is, in a sense the authority on what is presumed to be true, and what is presumed to be false."
On another note, I am considering compiling a book on the exchanges between aremeself, and Frogo. I am learning a lot through these exchanges and loving it, and Frogo is being very patient with aremeself. And yes, he is repeating himself, but he is also coming at it from different angles...but then so is aremeself. The more they debate, the more I learn... Although, sometimes I do get mildly irritated, because it appears we could be discussing the mating habits of mosquitoes in Iowa, and somehow it will dissolve into a debate on evolution. But that mild irritation passes, and I always learn something new...
Furthermore, I appreciate aremeself's contributions. I feel that the personal insults aimedat him are both reactive and irrational, and I think it has got to be hard for a person's perspective to even slightly shift, when they are being ridiculed. I have noticed that aremeself has made progress with his understanding of evolution, and he will be able to make a more informed choice based upon this understanding, as to whether or not he wants reject it.
Aremeself, I encourage you to step outside of the box, and entertain the possibility of evolution, and to pose your questions in a manner where you not attacking the theory of evolution itself. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/8/2009 2:23:01 PM | | Well, I believe in the string god. No - not that fancy physics thingy stuff. The other one - present in everything that resembles a bit of string, thread, rope, vines, etc. You can just toss a piece of string in the air and you know it's there - busily tying knots in that bit of string. However careful I am, coiling a rope, winding a piece of string, trying to use a needle and thread, the string god's handywork is there as soon as I unravel anything. There always seems to be a knot. Darned if I can undo it without spending ages pulling on one strand or another. The awesome intelligence that can do in a fraction of a second something that takes me ages to undo is just mind-boggling. The frustrating thing is, though that all those knots seem absolutely useless. All I want is a nice, straight piece of string to wrap around something. Why on earth can't that string god do something more useful than tying knots in my string. What on earth use is a knot? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/8/2009 2:32:22 PM | | hi^^^^^ well if you believe in a string god, why havent you asked this god??... this is what separates Creator God from any other god, be it string or science.. God can answer all questions and God knows the exact pace in which mankind can handle the answers.... blessings | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/8/2009 3:22:18 PM | It reminds me of how democrats and republicans see each other. They both are very much like creationists and cling to their beliefs whether they are shown evidence to the contrary.
Maybe having a little faith isn't such a bad thing, it does give someone to deflect things to when things don't make sense.
I wonder how a creationist could get on a plane, it was science that put it in the air not faith. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:48:38 PM | just about every evolutionist has brought that one up.
I drive a car too.
what the heck has that got to do with the fairy tale of evolution?
people invented rust buckets, [that help kill] so now I have to believe anything they say?
no one builds a car or plane randomly, but thats 100% how we got here.
show me a billion CONCRETE beneficial mutations, and you got me.
crappy mutations are everywhere.
simple, if we are 100% mutations. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 5:18:43 AM | So you believe in magic then? Let me see if I got this.
One day some benevolent higher being was sitting around the cosmos bored out of their skull. They thought to themselves, I should invent humans so he put two of them on this giant planet in hopes that they will breed their brains out and create almost nine billion of us.
So I imagine that is where your mutation theory would hold up, most of us turned out normal and then there are the creationists who still have some faith in a higher being. So you only account for about 17% of the mutations.
There is no way that two people could breed that many. It is not possible, there would have to be a larger group in order for our race to grow to its current size without some serious inbreeding complications. And that is about as simple as it gets. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 7:21:11 AM |
Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"? Why do you have a problem with this? This is one of the very first things I learned about the philosophy of science.
Science is a collection of scientific theories. Each of those theories can be replace at any time, by any theory that is found to be more accurate. So they are ALL tentative. Even the Supreme Court said so. The most factual theory we have is Relativity. It's billions of times more accurate than any other theory, including evolution. But even that can be replaced by another theory, if it's more accurate.
Science has reliability, because each of those scientific theories is checked to see just how reliable it really is. So science is useful, especially in medicine.
But if any scientist thinks that he has the truth, say a doctor, then even though 99% of his diagnoses may be right, still in 1% of cases, his diagnosis will be wrong. If he assumes that science is 100% right, then he'll assume all his diagnoses are right, and in that 1% of cases, he'll kill the patient. This sort of thing is called a "god complex". It's killed kids before, who seemed like they had flu, when really they had meningitis, and where the doctor didn't listen to the pleas of the parents, because he was sure that he was right.
Science is a fantastic tool to help us, so long as we can accept that we never have it completely right, not in any 1 theory, or all of them. It's just that if we start thinking we are definitely right, then we'll end up killing people, instead of helping them. We have to accept that both are true, science is reliable, and it isn't definitely right. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 7:55:51 AM | Heres my take.
There are theologians, scientists, and the rest of us. While theologians and scientists work almost exclusively in those fields, and deal with 'objective' observations of their respective subject matter, the rest of humanity just reads about it in the paper. The guy that works at walmart isn't going into any deep analysis of the information that lands in his brain every day, he collects an emotional 'gist' of the information's validity, and then makes a decision whether or not to trust a source.
It really isnt too much different for the academics who distil the information either. There is a basis of source material, that is taken as a given, and they build on that. Its faith in the credibility of your predecessors. If everyone scrutinized everything down to the lowest level, there would be no knowledge to be had. We would all be too busy with the process to enjoy the product. The theological source is biblical text, the scientific source are scientific texts. The 'big picture' has the same general structure in each heirarchy.
Ironically, the nature of research and derivation of the sciences are directly modeled from the theological scholarship that came before modern academia. To think that they are somehow orthagonal disciplines is just ignorant. If you remove the conclusions and subject matter, what is left... is the same stuff. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 8:12:27 AM | | And I do not think anyone, in ernest, thinks they have everything exactly right. Be they theologians, or scientists. The church, for instance, adapts to science. For the most part, when irrefutable proof of something is presented to the church, they back pedal, and reasess their 'axioms of faith'. It is really not those who have an honest interest in the deep meaning in either that abuse the concept of reliable source material. Its the idiots who have a world view, and not much understanding of it, trying to fight off shadows threatening to obscure the light of the fly trap they have been staring at their entire life. Those are the ones who rail against opposition blindly. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:46:43 AM | chickon,
or the magic of information coming out of thin air to make all of the various species that we see on earth today. [which is not even 1% of what has been on earth]
I believe over 99.9% of species has become extinct.
haven't done the math.
why did people not marry family before we knew about mutation? [bad ones have been there for a while]
absolutely acceptable to marry family if there are no mutations.
what would be wrong with it?
Its a bible rule to not do it anymore, why are we listening to that one?
certainly not because its in the bible, are we?
these days its not a good idea to marry family because the damaging mutations that all of us have to some degree will show up when people with the same mutations have kids.
the earth can sustain more than it has if resources wouldn't be squandered as they are.
if the climate was more moderate, the earth could sustain many more people.
interesting fact, there are more people on earth at this time than have died.
hey, I don't think we are 100% mutant, not yet anyway.
we seem to be going in that direction.
later. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
