|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Tesla, do you practice writing in fortune cookie language? Take a look at the following statement.
tesla writes:
This is the kind of statement you'd find in a fortune cookie. On the outside it sounds like something a wise Chinese Master would say, but on the inside it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. if a seed has no faith in its ability to grow, it would not grow. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Firstly, I was not asking for your confused ideas about the transitional fossil status of tiktaalik. I was asking how this discovery was based on faith or dogma. You have conspicuously failed to answer this question, even though it is the whole point of this thread.
Secondly, if you look at what I actually said, you will see that I never said that macroevolution was an un-scientific term or that biologists never use it. I said that scientists tend not to use it, largely, one suspects, because of creationists such as yourself employ the familiar straw man version of the term, i.e. crocoducks, magical processes that never happened and "particles to people Macroevolution", a pretty lousy definition of the term, and one that you provided. Macroevolution does not refer to "particles to people", whence the straw man accusation, one that I stand by. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you antiLIE. Either explain how tiktaalik's discovery was based on faith or don't bother replying. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5812 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
GRANNY MAGDA writes: I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you antiLIE. Either explain how tiktaalik's discovery was based on faith or don't bother replying. When all you find of an animal is a skull and several bone fragments, to conclude that it did things that other animals can not do, to me is relying on faith. Faith in your worldview, faith in the scientists word and faith in the artist rendition. A skull and a few fragments does not show that it walked on land with it's fins. We can observe other lobe fined fish today like the coelacanth and see that they use the lobe fins like rotary propellers and hover and maneuver like a helicopter in the water. To say that the tiktaalik was different and walked on land is speculative with no evidence other than a lobe fin with wrists that would have had to have extream strength to move the tiny wrist/lobe fin to body ratio. Edited by antiLIE, : re write, didn't like the pacing of the paragraphs... Edited by antiLIE, : removed pointless insult and re worded some things.. lol Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
antiLIE writes: Now. If you are not going to constructively prove otherwise... you don't bother replying. We could believe that the scientists spent five years looking for this very thing in the freezing wastes of Ellesmere Island, not because of predictions of the theory of evolution and geological knowledge, but because they enjoyed the local climate. And, in a one in a million chance, they got lucky. But we'd probably be lying superstitious fools if we believed that, don't you think? Of course, we could opt to believe that the many scientists who've examined the find are all liars, because, perhaps that might explain things in a way that fits our personal religious desires. But we'd probably be lying superstitious fools if we believed that, don't you think? You may be missing a point on this particular thread. The point here isn't whether or not scientists might be mistaken in any particular interpretations of any evidence available to them, but whether or not science is faith based, in the way that all the religions are, or whether it's based on observations and evidence. Do you think science is a faith based religion, or not? (Remember, in answering this, that there is no scientific law or theory that states that the supernatural cannot exist, and that there is no scientific knowledge which shows that this universe was not created by a deity, or deities, or wizards, or anything else you care to mention).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
When all you find of an animal is a skull and several bone fragments, to conclude that it did things that other animals can not do, to me is relying on faith. No-one is saying that tiktaalik was capable of anything that other animals were incapable of, I don't know where you got that idea. It doesn't really matter though, since what you say clearly demonstrates that the current understanding of the fossil is based upon evidence. Whether you happen to like the interpretation or not is irrelevant. The interpretation may be wrong (although I do not think it is) but the interpretation is based upon fossil evidence, not blind faith. Besides, scientific ideas are subject to tentativity, hardly an example of blind faith. Unfortunately you still haven't answered my question. I asked how the discovery was based on faith and dogma, not the subsequent interpretation. A prediction was made that fish/amphibian transitions occurred at a particular time and thus, would be found in particular formations. When those formations were studied, out popped tiktaalik. The obvious fact that you do not fully comprehend what is so different about this fossil aside, how did an errant theory, based on faith and dogma make such an accurate prediction? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
anitLIE writes: When all you find of an animal is a skull and several bone fragments, to conclude that it did things that other animals can not do, to me is relying on faith. You quoted CreationWiki back in Message 274, which was the only factual argument about Tiktaalik I could find in your posts in this thread. It argues not that the evolutionary view is based upon faith, but that it is an incorrect interpretation of the evidence. You're not making any arguments in favor of the faith-based view. You're simply arguing that in your view the evolutionary position has insufficient evidence, and that insufficient evidence is faith. Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct about the evidence being insufficient, a view based upon insufficient evidence is not faith. And it most certainly isn't any kind of religious faith of the type that believes, for example, that when you die your soul goes to heaven. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5812 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: You may be missing a point on this particular thread. The point here isn't whether or not scientists might be mistaken in any particular interpretations of any evidence available to them, but whether or not science is faith based, in the way that all the religions are, or whether it's based on observations and evidence. Do you think science is a faith based religion, or not? In this case i was mistaken about the topic.. So I will answer. No i DO NOT think that Science is faith based religion. Not at all, and it should never be faith based. I do believe that the general theory of Evolution is faith based and not part of science. I also believe that Creation is faith based and is not part of science. Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5812 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
Percy
writes: Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct about the evidence being insufficient, a view based upon insufficient evidence is not faith. And it most certainly isn't any kind of religious faith of the type that believes, for example, that when you die your soul goes to heaven. Well put that way then definately not. I stand corrected. Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5812 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda writes: Unfortunately you still haven't answered my question. I asked how the discovery was based on faith and dogma, not the subsequent interpretation Answer: The discovery was not faith based. Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
antiLIE writes: I do believe that the general theory of Evolution is faith based and not part of science. I also believe that Creation is faith based and is not part of science. Do you think that the mechanisms of change used in modern evolutionary theory cannot be observed? Do you think that the view that modern organisms descend from other organisms, whether right or wrong, is not based on evidence? Do you think that the theory within a theory that we descend from a common ancestor with the chimps is not evidence based? Really? Have you read extensively in the scientific literature in relation to such points? If you are, as you claim, a searcher for truth, then you surely must have done this before claiming that the ToE is faith based and not part of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I do believe that the general theory of Evolution is faith based and not part of science. How can this be true when there are mountains of evidence upon which evolution is based, including direct observation? Even if you disagree with the interpretation of that evidence (a separate topic), because evolution is based on evidence it cannot be based on faith. Evolution is based (among other things) on the observed similarities across multiple species of organisms, on the placement in the geological record at which species are found, on genetics on direct observation of the process in action... That being the case, it is obvious that evolution is based on evidence, even if you disagree with what the evidence means. It is therefor not based on faith. You also realize that nearly all of modern Biology is related to evolutionary theory, right? And that most of the models used by Biology, models that have continuously produced highly accurate results and real-world useful discoveries, are based on evolution and do not work without it? Saying that "evolution is not science" does equate to saying that all of modern Biology is also not science. Do you really think that all of our current understanding of living things and how they relate and function is based on faith? This in the face of more evidence than you could learn in an entire lifetime? Where is the faith, antiLIE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
antiLIE writes: I do believe that the general theory of Evolution is faith based and not part of science. I also believe that Creation is faith based and is not part of science. Creationism is based upon revelation from the Bible. Evolutionary theory, like all science, is based upon observation of the natural world. The religious definition of faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, can only be applied to creationism. You even agreed with this position. When I defined religious belief using the example of belief that when you die your soul goes to heaven, you said in Message 308, "Well put that way then definitely not. I stand corrected." Any other definition of faith isn't applicable to this discussion and is simply tendentious argument anyway, really merely taking any uncertainty or disagreement and saying, "Aha! Faith!" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5812 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
Percy...indeed i agree.. That is why I said that this is what "I believe"...
Like I said.. Just answering the thread.. I think that SCIENCE is not faith based. but.. I do not agree that Evolution IS science. nor do I believe that all modern biology is based on it. (pretty bold claim there) all this in my opinion Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
antiLIE writes: I think that SCIENCE is not faith based. but.. I do not agree that Evolution IS science. This raises a few questions. If evolution isn't science, what is it? When you say evolution isn't science, is that just a side comment not pertinent to the thread's topic (in which case discussion would have to move to another thread)? Or are you saying evolution is based upon faith? If you are saying that evolution is based upon faith, then what aspects of evolution would you say are consistent with scientists saying, "We have no evidence of this whatsoever, but we believe it anyway." And for any examples you come up with, how is this type of faith at all similar to religious faith, instead of just being, "You're wrong." If you think you have an answer to that last question, then ask yourself what kind of faith is it when someone says, "I believe my destiny is out there somewhere, and I'm going to find it." Is this religious faith? Many of these are just rhetorical questions designed to highlight that evolution specifically and science generally have no resemblance whatsoever to any religious type of faith. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Percy...indeed i agree.. That is why I said that this is what "I believe"... That doesn't make sense. You agree that evolution is science but don't believe evolution is science?
Like I said.. Just answering the thread.. I think that SCIENCE is not faith based. but.. I do not agree that Evolution IS science. Why? You haven't given a reason. You've made a bare assertion. Your opinion means less than nothing.
nor do I believe that all modern biology is based on it. (pretty bold claim there) Damned near everything in modern Biology ties directly to evolution. If evolution were disproved tomorrow, it would be a scientific cateclysm on the level of disproving tectonic plate theory or the theory of gravity, becasue all have proven to be similarly accurate.
all this in my opinion You seem to be working under the elementary-school nonsense position that all opinions are equally valid and cannot be wrong. Your opinion is factually incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence. This means it is not based on faith. By ignoring that evidence and claiming that you still "believe" evolution is based on faith (without giving any sort of reason), you aren't participating in an honest debate - you're arguing like a stubborn child. antiLIE: Science isn't based on faith, but evolution is and so evolution is not science. Everybody else: ...but here's the evidence evolution is based on. Even if you don't agree with the evidence, it's obviously not based on faith. antiLIE: Yeah, but in my opinion it's still based on faith. Everybody else: Why do you say that? We just gave you some of the evidence. How can you claim evolution is not based on evidence when we just gave you the evidence it's based on? antiLIE: It's my opinion. So, would you care to provide the reason you think evolution is based on faith, despite the fact that several times in this thread we have provided bits of the evidence evolution is based on? Becasue if you simply have an opinion with no rational reason to make your claim, your argument is null.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024