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.
Science as a whole does not rest on faith. however there are things within the large tent called science that can not be proved. science can not prove the origin of man.
Science doesn't claim to have it all figured out yet, either.
Only religion does that.
Quote:
So to believe there is some scientific explanation for man you have to place your faith in science.
Scientific explanations do not require belief. They're based on compelling evidence and the findings can be relpicated.
Quote:
Science can not prove the origin of man, TOE does not prove the origin or discusses origin of man. So to believe that science has an explanation you place your faith in science.
Where do you come up with this notion that science has a final answer for the origin of man?
Quote:
For a religious person to believe the origin of man is explained with their religion they must have faith.
True.
Quote:
Since there is n proof of the origin of man you must have faith there was an origin
The proof that man has an origin is evident in our existence. No further "proof" is required.
Again, you have terms confused.
Science offers an explanation based on the evidence we have, which is admittedly incomplete but pointedly antithetical to creationism.
There is no belief in science. Only acceptance or rejection. As long as an explanation fits the evidence, it's accpeted. As the evidence becomes more complete, the explanation expands. The model is modified.
Science is adaptable because of its flexibility.
Religion is limited because of its rigid dogma. And religion rests entirely on faith and belief in the supernatural. It can't offer rational explanations. In a world of expanding knowledge where the supernatural is rapidly receding, religious faith faces a limited future. Its rigidity is its weakness.
I do not cite a bible i cite the dictionary
Faith is beleif is something you can prove
Thanks. You did not say what was the source of your definition of Faith. As you can see. There has to be an agreement certain term when discussions are going on.
What exactly did you try to write? "is belief is something you can prove"? That is very confusing. You wrote in your OP that is something you cannot prove. Please be more clear on this.
Thanks. You did not say what was the source of your definition of Faith. As you can see. There has to be an agreement certain term when discussions are going on.
What exactly did you try to write? "is belief is something you can prove"? That is very confusing. You wrote in your OP that is something you cannot prove. Please be more clear on this.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
the links to the dictionary I have posted says Faith is a belief in something that can not be proved
Correct you win the prize. So if you believe in a set facts that can not be proven you must have faith to beleive in those facts
If they can't be proven they wouldn't be "facts" would they? A fact is something that can be proven...that's why it's called a "fact".
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.
