Originally posted by LangtreeSo what did I miss here.
I have been checking back on all your posts, so I'll be answering each one. You did not defend your position, nor did you answer my challenges. So what did I miss here. Maybe I missed something later.
truthfully, i think you missed the point i was trying to make. that may be partly my problem for not rendering my point through clear formulation. however, i think it is more likely that you just simply cannot see how empty your arguments are. let me just simply state my very fundamental question again. i am starting to get tired of repeating it, particularly because i think at this point you have no intention of actually addressing it, but i will continue to indulge you:
concerning the choice between evolution and creationism, you stated very plainly in english that creationism is the 'logical conclusion'. which is to say, you think creationism is logical, whereas evolution is not. first of all, i would remark that absolutely nothing you have stated in this thread supports this remark of yours. but ignoring that, there is a much more fundamental charge i can make against your claim. namely, creationism relies on appealing to some sort of supernatural being that is incomprehensible to man by definition. if that is your definition of 'logical', then it is seriously flawed. your belief in creationism is faith-based, and, as such, your attempts to somehow convince us that you are being the 'logical' one are self-defeating.
Originally posted by Langtreei think your words speak for themselves and expound nicely on the 'self-defeating' aspect of your argument that i alluded to in my previous post.
Address what fundalmental question. Evolution is also faith based, more so than creationism, given the facts that support creation. You question doesn't help your argument it actually detracts from it, because you are not basing it on any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Originally posted by KellyJaycreationism is inherently faith-based because if you take away the supernatural creator, then of course you are left with nothing resembling creationism. evolution does not have any supernatural assumptions -- it doesn't possess that inherent foundation in faith. my position is that evolution makes a whole lot more sense than creationism and appeals to my cognitive faculties, whereas creationism leaves my capacity for reason bloodied and left for dead.
You don't think evolution is faith based?
Kelly
i think your question may be more aimed toward that person who says that evolution is correct beyond any shadow of a doubt. my proclivity would be to chastise this person's unfounded assertion in the same way i chastise langtree for positing that everyone is silly for not blindly adopting creationism as he has.
so to answer what i think you meant by your question: no, my belief that evolution is much more sensible than creationism does not require any faith on my part.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree, creationism is faith based so we can move back to the
creationism is inherently faith-based because if you take away the supernatural creator, then of course you are left with nothing resembling creationism. evolution does not have any supernatural assumptions -- it doesn't possess that inherent foundation in faith. my position is that evolution makes a whole lot more sense than creationism and appeals to ...[text shortened]... ief that evolution is much more sensible than creationism does not require any faith on my part.
question I asked you. Evolution, do you think it is faith based?
Evolution can make more sense to you and still be faith based,
evolution can appeal to your cognitive faculites and still be
faith based. Being sensible can still make it faith based, what
requires evolution to not be faith based 'IN YOUR OPINION?"
I will simply remind you we all see what we see in the here and
now, so is there something about evolution that does not require
faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayno i do not think evolution necessarily entails any faith (unlike creationism). evolution (again unlike creationism) can be approached with scientific rigor and with the clear methodology of drawing logical conclusions from a set of controlled observations. this is what i mean when i say that it appeals to the cognitive faculties.
I agree, creationism is faith based so we can move back to the
question I asked you. Evolution, do you think it is faith based?
Evolution can make more sense to you and still be faith based,
evolution can appeal to your cognitive faculites and still be
faith based. Being sensible can still make it faith based, what
requires evolution to not be faith b ...[text shortened]... in the here and
now, so is there something about evolution that does not require
faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloDescribe for me how you know a single cell over billions of years
no i do not think evolution necessarily entails any faith (unlike creationism). evolution (again unlike creationism) can be approached with scientific rigor and with the clear methodology of drawing logical conclusions from a set of controlled observations. this is what i mean when i say that it appeals to the cognitive faculties.
through evolution transformed into millions of different species
using science and not faith. Did you see the first cell come to
life from non-living material in abiogenesis? Did you see single
cell creatures split and multiplay and over time turn into beings
with 2 different sexes? What part of those things are you not
taking on faith?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayeasy cheesey. are you saying that we cannot approach the theory of evolution through scientific method?
Describe for me how you know a single cell over billions of years
through evolution transformed into millions of different species
using science and not faith. Did you see the first cell come to
life from non-living material in abiogenesis? Did you see single
cell creatures split and multiplay and over time turn into beings
with 2 different sexes? What part of those things are you not
taking on faith?
Kelly
the bottom line is evolution can be explained by natural occurrences whereas creationism can only be explained by the supernatural. one of these you can approach through cognition; one you cannot (by definition). care to venture a guess as to which is which?
People seem to use the word “faith” in different ways in these threads. Some apply it only to religious (or similar) perspectives, when they see it as an alternative to rational thought or empirical evidence—or perhaps not as an alternative to, but as an addendum to. Others use it in a more general way, to mean any decision or viewpoint taken, in the face of whatever evidence, but under conditions of uncertainty (such as my taking my umbrella with me—or not— when the weather report says “x” chance of rain). Some people seem to use it both ways, depending on context.
I haven’t taken the time to look it up, but I suspect that a dictionary would include entries similar to both. I have always tended to think of it in the second way (with maybe the added sense of acting with a kind of practical confidence on those decisions), but it may also have some more specific connotations religiously that cannot be extended outside that domain. I suspect that if the issues weren’t so contentious—and cross domains—it wouldn’t be such a “big” word to argue about, and that the arguments might be more about when faith (in the second, general sense at least) is “appropriate” and to what degree, absent certainty.
As someone who accepts the theory of evolution as probably a good explanation of the process of how we came to be here as we are, but as someone who is not a scientist, I have to put some faith (in the second sense) in the scientific method and those who apply it—and their “good faith” in doing so. I don’t have a problem with that. The religious domain is a bit trickier for me, but I tend to follow the same formula, with less reliance on the “experts” and more on my own experience/study—subject, as Kelly has said—to continuing “critical assessments.”
Ah! I just re-read the posts, and see that there might be a difference between something being “faith-based” and simply requiring an element (large or small) of faith. So I’ve probably just confused the issue…
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, I did not say that we could not approach the theory of evolution
easy cheesey. are you saying that we cannot approach the theory of evolution through scientific method?
the bottom line is evolution can be explained by natural occurrences whereas creationism can only be explained by the supernatura ...[text shortened]... ot (by definition). care to venture a guess as to which is which?
through scientific methods. I asked you if evolution was faith based,
not that you couldn't use science methods upon natural occurrences!
You can look at natural occurrences all you want with science, that
does not mean that evolution isn't faith, only that you can look at
natural occurrences with science.
When it comes to evolution being the method that supposedly
has been changing DNA over billions of years, is that faith? I
agree with you creation is faith, the question remains is
evolution faith as well? I do have some concerns about
evolution not being as purely scientific without faith being
involved with it throughout.
Creation is a single one time event which would have naturally
occurring events taking place afterwards too, so simply seeing
those don’t mean anything. Evolution is supposedly a process
taking place even now. Evolution is supposedly so slow we just
cannot see changes because they happen so slowly, our natural
occurrences will be taking place if this all started with God and
creation or evolution. So how do you know which if not both
occured?
Simply seeing naturally occurring events does not mean that we
know what occurred billions of years ago nor does it mean we
know how it started with creation or not. It only means we are
seeing naturally occurring events.
I have for example asked about how the two different sexes came
into being, can that be talked about using science or faith? Even
when another poster made a minor attempt of addressing this, he
only spoke about the advantages of having two sexes, but not why
it would occur or how. Why would it be an advantage for a life
form to split and multiply, change into different sexes which
then require for two different sexes to come together to have
off spring, how would they know to come back together, if
knowledge wasn’t evolved in getting them back together what
was? Can we talk about this with beliefs, faith, or observable
events that can be tested?
Kelly
Originally posted by frogstompYou made a serious over sight Frogstomp. In particular, there are modern birds that have teeth. Why don't you take a guess.
Heres the facts about radiometric testing, I dont have time to explain how wrong you are again.
btw Since I don't have time to go thru each nitpick you guys make.
make you statement I'll make mine and if you want to appeal to authority like dj does and you been trying in this post , I remind you the most of the authorities ...[text shortened]... ss, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bella
Originally posted by LemonJelloLemonjello, Understand this clearly. Evolution and creation are THEORIES OF ORIGINS. The evidence we have exists in the present, but the actions in the past. Evolution occurs too slowly in any one life time to be documented.
creationism is inherently faith-based because if you take away the supernatural creator, then of course you are left with nothing resembling creationism. evolution does not have any supernatural assumptions -- it doesn't possess that i ...[text shortened]... e sensible than creationism does not require any faith on my part.
All your evidence in anatomy has not answered the more nagging questions that plague evolution. 1. How does evolution explain the law of entropy? according to Evolution the world in getting more complex, when the SCIENTIFIC LAW states otherwise. 2. Where are the transitional forms? If there were any we would have discovered them by now, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin stated there should be. 3. The radiometric dating methods are all suspect. See my earlier posts. 4. If evolution is true, then defining characteristic of animal and plants should be less distinct. Linnenean(?) system demonstrates that fact. 5. Why are languages becoming less complex. I have studied, (but don't boast expertise,) cunieform, New Testament Greek and both are very complex. English is a very sloppy language. 6. Fossilization, occurs rapidly, so if evolution were true, really there should be any fossils. Fossilization requires a quick cementing process, with tremondous pressure, otherwise no impression can be made. 7. Evolutionists used to believe tonsils, coccyx, and appendix were vestigal organs. I had my tonsils removed because of that, when they were infected with Rubella. They would have cleared up naturally. They are all still useful. 8. Haeckel's evolutionary recapitulation theory stated, The gill slits in the unborn fetus were once considered a throwback to our fish heritage, only later it was discovered they are the early forms of the vocal cords. The yoke sac, was considered to be a throwback to our bird heritage, well, it was discovered that is where our red blood cells first form. 9. Natural selection only occurs within kinds; take for examples the canine, dogs, wolves, foxes, wombats, hyenas. 10. How does evolution explain the special abilities of the woodpecker, bombardier beetle, cleaner fish, archer fish. These are specialized functions that defy evolution. Random processes governed by chance don't produce complex designs, even if there were millions of years it still is very doubtful that such complexity and order could arise out of chaos. 11. To form an protein moelcule, a certain number of amino acids must line up in perfect sequence. Chances of that happening even if it were 21, is still 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 it would happen the first time. There are too many unanswered questions, this is just a small sampling. Evolution and creation are not science, but science is needed to verify the data, to see which side is correct.