Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. I think that is the issue with this. We are trying to put an age on earth and none of us really know. There may be an explanation for why certain things appear to be older. Perhaps, we took the idea of the time God took to create earth too literal? Maybe he placed things on the earth to be provided as resources such as oil, minerals, etc.? It is just impossible to prove something that we were never there to create and people who side as evolutionist do not recognize no matter how much evidence may be presented without anyone actually observing and documenting the Big Bang it takes a degree of faith to believe what they believe, just like Creationist.
So would you throw any criminal cases out of court where there wasn't anyone actually there to observe the crime committed in real time? Criminals would love you.
So would you throw any criminal cases out of court where there wasn't anyone actually there to observe the crime committed in real time? Criminals would love you.
This is a common tactic - attempting to put faith on the same level as science, but no ... no, no no.
It doesn't work.
Claiming that anything you have faith in has the same validity as things that are tested, reproduced, verified, re-tested, and put through the ringer to see if it can be falsified - well, it is just nonsense.
And the reason why I call nonsense on this issue is because this reasoning and logic ONLY applies to religion as if religious beliefs have a special dispensation to ignore reality. You wouldn't go to a doctor who told you that your cancer will be cured if you flap your arms and cluck like a chicken ... would you?
And if not, why not? Why isn't his faith in the "chicken cure" just as valid as chemotherapy and other science-based treatments?
Because that's what you're saying - faith equals science. But I'm betting you don't believe that for a second in any other context except religion. Not only are you using a rather grandiose "special pleading" fallacy, you should ask yourself why you do not think magical gremlins caused your car to break down but still believing that an all-powerful spirit-being magically created the entire universe.
WHEN has a magical explanation ever been accepted and proven to be the cause of anything?
Depends on what "same level" you are using when comparing "Faith" and "Science".
Actually, it always comes down to "Faith"...you must have "faith" in the accuracy of the data on which you base your information. Since it is known that nothing is infallible...and even after all the "testing and retesting...and put through the ringer to see if it can be falsified", so-called "scientific facts" have been found to be wrong. You never know for sure.
Thus....there is no comparing ANYTHING to "Faith"...it anchors EVERYTHING we think we "know". And that's not a "magical explanation"...that's just "the reality of the way of the world".
So...keep the FAITH Shirina...it's all we REALLY have.
Of course...I personally have "great faith" that Earth REALLY IS around 4 1/2 Billion years old. And I don't need "science" to tell me it's older than 6 Thousand...common sense suffices for that. Heck...we have living trees over half that age!
This is a common tactic - attempting to put faith on the same level as science, but no ... no, no no.
It doesn't work.
Claiming that anything you have faith in has the same validity as things that are tested, reproduced, verified, re-tested, and put through the ringer to see if it can be falsified - well, it is just nonsense.
Nope. Not true. You cannot test, reproduce, verify, re-test and put the Big Bang through a ringer, which is why evolution is only considered a theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And the reason why I call nonsense on this issue is because this reasoning and logic ONLY applies to religion as if religious beliefs have a special dispensation to ignore reality. You wouldn't go to a doctor who told you that your cancer will be cured if you flap your arms and cluck like a chicken ... would you?
And if not, why not? Why isn't his faith in the "chicken cure" just as valid as chemotherapy and other science-based treatments?
Because that's what you're saying - faith equals science. But I'm betting you don't believe that for a second in any other context except religion. Not only are you using a rather grandiose "special pleading" fallacy, you should ask yourself why you do not think magical gremlins caused your car to break down but still believing that an all-powerful spirit-being magically created the entire universe.
WHEN has a magical explanation ever been accepted and proven to be the cause of anything?
No that's not what I am saying at all. The problem with a lot of evolutionists, is they see the views of anyone who believes in creation, to think that faith and science are mutually exclusive. I do not agree. There are some things that simply cannot be explained by science. Regardless of what 'religious' system you subscribe to, it takes faith for you to believe some of the things that you believe about the beginning of life because none of us was there to see it.
Nope. Not true. You cannot test, reproduce, verify, re-test and put the Big Bang through a ringer, which is why evolution is only considered a theory.
When the scientific community announces that something is a "theory," it means that it has reached the very top of the "fact" pyramid. It means that evolution IS a fact for all intents and purposes - and while, yes, it will require tweaking and adjusting here and there as we make new discoveries, but confidence in the truth of evolution is so high that the tens of thousands of scientists who work on these projects are in agreement.
Oh, and with computer modeling, science actually can recreate such enigmas as The Big Bang and put it through the ringer. That's one of the advantages of science - the evidence is there for everyone to see. I don't have to rely on someone else telling me they talked to God last night as evidence. Yes, as a scientific layperson, I often do let the scientific community explain to me what the evidence is. But if I really wanted to, I could conduct my own experiments and see the results for myself.
You can't do that with faith, per se ... at least not with religious faith. It's impossible to view religion objectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
There are some things that simply cannot be explained by science.
I completely agree. Science will likely never be able to explain the "why" of a lot of things. The trouble is that the human mind has a very difficult time accepting the concept of chance, luck, or randomness. Our brains scream and kick, and rebel against the idea of chaos. This is one of the major reasons why a God is so attractive to a lot of people - God replaces "chance" and provides a "why" to an otherwise meaningless event. It is precisely the reason why many creationists cannot accept the idea that we're here by chance. There MUST be a reason, a why, a meaning to all of this. Except there doesn't have to be a reason. Our minds work very hard at finding order in chaos; it is why we see faces in random things or bunnies in the clouds.
So while yes, I agree that science will never be able to explain certain things - but the origin of the universe and such ... nah, those will be explained by science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
Regardless of what 'religious' system you subscribe to, it takes faith for you to believe some of the things that you believe about the beginning of life because none of us was there to see it.
Do you understand that if we have to be an eyewitness to everything that we know, humanity would still be living in caves struggling to light a fire? Because it would be impossible to hand knowledge down from one generation to the next. Historical records would be meaningless, discoveries in science that we ourselves didn't see would have to be rediscovered with every new generation - I think you get the point.
That's why the "you weren't there to see it" argument doesn't really work. I would guess that 99% of everything that I know, I learned second hand. A teacher, a book, a television documentary, a lecture, a presentation - that's how we learn and how we pass along our knowledge. If the census says that the population of Tokyo is 30 million, do you feel you have to doubt that number unless you go to Tokyo yourself and count everyone? I'm betting that most of what you know, you were not there to see happen.
Which means, of course, that the "you weren't there" argument is just another example of special pleading. Because we don't need to be there to witness every singular event on earth to believe that those events occurred - but when it comes to The Big Bang or evolution, suddenly we have to physically see the universe "bang" for it to have validity.
So would you throw any criminal cases out of court where there wasn't anyone actually there to observe the crime committed in real time? Criminals would love you.
Nope. Not true. You cannot test, reproduce, verify, re-test and put the Big Bang through a ringer, which is why evolution is only considered a theory.
The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution....You also do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is... A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
If you have evidence to dispute the theory of evolution, please produce it....You would be the first, and you would be famous world wide.
Quote:
No that's not what I am saying at all. The problem with a lot of evolutionists, is they see the views of anyone who believes in creation, to think that faith and science are mutually exclusive. I do not agree. There are some things that simply cannot be explained by science.
Of course there are...If everything was explained there would be no need for science. On the other hand creation explains nothing.
Quote:
Regardless of what 'religious' system you subscribe to, it takes faith for you to believe some of the things that you believe about the beginning of life because none of us was there to see it.
That is not exactly true....We know little about the beginning of life, but that is not what this thread is about...It is about evolution for which there are museum loads of evidence all over the world making being there unnecessary...As a matter of fact there are many instances of plants and animals evolving today that can be observed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
