Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

[Estrid]

You see, dear correspondent, in science we don't care what people think about the nature of the Universe and the things inside it, only what we can demonstrate. We don't even care about our own feelings or opinions. (I don't care for general relativity, but that doesn't mean I get to ignore it.) Our task is to figure out how things work based on evidence. Nothing more; nothing less.

It's no use; your opinion. has been deemed non factual

 

[Estrid]

Proof isn't required for faith.

Faith - definition
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Belief often refers to an intellectual acceptance of facts. However, faith adds trust and commitment.

So if one trusts the science (theories) they have faith in it and are committed to it and that is faith.

Evidence? It's a matter of interpretation of information gathered and there are many interpretations of the evidence ... many.

It takes faith to believe either in creation or evolution. It's a matter of what one puts their trust and confidence in.

And the grim and unnatural spectre of
SEDI* again raises its moldy head like the
shameful electrified corpse it is.

* same evidence, different conclusion

 

[Ophiolite]

no there is faith involved with evolution belief ... faith is believing something/someone to be true ... and some believe the evolution theories ... so it does take faith. We collect information and that information is then interpreted not to say the interpretations are true.

You are mistaken. I think evolution is the most convincing current explanation for the diveristy of life on the planet. However,

• I do not know if it is true.
• I have no proof that it is true.
• I would be surprised if it were shown that it was not true, but not excessively so. (In many ways I would delighted that a whole new field of investigation was necessarily opend up.)
• So I most certainly have no belief that it is true. That, for me personally, would be arrogant, presumptuous and dumb.
• However, I have no meanigful doubt that evolutionary theory is currently the only explanation for the diveristy of life on the planet that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Recognising this demonstrable fact requires no faith at all.

With all the intricacies involved with the universe and the earth .... it takes too much faith for me to believe in millions/billions of happen chances occurring over millions/billions of years ...

Evolution is the alternative for those who do not believe the biblical account of creation.

That is an argument from incredulity. Moreover, it is an argument based upon a strawman description of evolution. If you think evolution is wholly dictated by chance, you simply have not been paying attention. Chance has a role to play, but chemical and biochemical constrained processes, selected by the natural environment are of equal or greater importance.

Evolution is a perfectly satisfactory explanation to many Christians as to how the Creation metaphor decribing the apperance of life, as presented in scripture, was achieved.

The fact is how we came into being is unknown ... however the only 2 plausible explanations are evolution or creation ... and both take faith to believe.

Faith isn't just a religious thing ... faith can be applied to many things.

Faith can be applied to many things and if one is foolish enough to choose to believe that evolution is 100% proven, as we currently understand it, then one would be employing faith. For those of us who consider that the explanation may be any of the hundreds of creation myths, plus implantation by aliens, existence within a simulation, and others that we have had no hint of as yet, then faith is irrelvant. It's just that all these alternative explanations currently have little or no evidence to support them, whereas evolution theory has more supporting evidence than one could read in a lifetime filled with 14 hour working days.

 

[Estrid]

You are mistaken. I think evolution is the most convincing current explanation for the diveristy of life on the planet. However,

• I do not know if it is true.
• I have no proof that it is true.
• I would be surprised if it were shown that it was not true, but not excessively so. (In many ways I would delighted that a whole new field of investigation was necessarily opend up.)
• So I most certainly have no belief that it is true. That, for me personally, would be arrogant, presumptuous and dumb.
• However, I have no meanigful doubt that evolutionary theory is currently the only explanation for the diveristy of life on the planet that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Recognising this demonstrable fact requires no faith at all.

That is an argument from incredulity. Moreover, it is an argument based upon a strawman description of evolution. If you think evolution is wholly dictated by chance, you simply have not been paying attention. Chance has a role to play, but chemical and biochemical constrained processes, selected by the natural environment are of equal or greater importance.

Evolution is a perfectly satisfactory explanation to many Christians as to how the Creation metaphor decribing the apperance of life, as presented in scripture, was achieved.

Faith can be applied to many things and if one is foolish enough to choose to believe that evolution is 100% proven, as we currently understand it, then one would be employing faith. For those of us who consider that the explanation may be any of the hundreds of creation myths, plus implantation by aliens, existence within a simulation, and others that we have had no hint of as yet, then faith is irrelvant. It's just that all these alternative explanations currently have little or no evidence to support them, whereas evolution theory has more supporting evidence than one could read in a lifetime filled with 14 hour working days.

Would not be exceedingly surprised...

Are you so sure?
ToE has many facets, many fields
of resesrch involved.

Let's say yes it's ye Cambrian Bunny
shows up.

Does that not mean that all dating
methods are wrong? That there is gross
systemic error in all fossil collecting?

All notions of population dynamics,
competition, ecological niche, parallel
Oops almost said evolution, predator /
prey interaction....

All of it was wrong wrong wrong.

Historical geology? Forget it.

No big surprise if all that came down
like wet sheetrovk?

 

[Ophiolite]

Would not be exceedingly surprised...

Are you so sure?
ToE has many facets, many fields
of resesrch involved.

Let's say yes it's ye Cambrian Bunny
shows up.

Does that not mean that all dating
methods are wrong? That there is gross
systemic error in all fossil collecting?

All notions of population dynamics,
competition, ecological niche, parallel
Oops almost said evolution, predator /
prey interaction....

All of it was wrong wrong wrong.

Historical geology? Forget it.

No big surprise if all that came down
like wet sheetrovk?

I understand your incredulity, but like Lewis Carrol I've often "believed six impossible things before breakfast".

I think that deliberately contemplating the unlikely, the seemingly impossible, can improve lateral thinking and overall creativity. What tends to surprise me are the small things that I haven't reflected on.

 

[Estrid]

I understand your incredulity, but like Lewis Carrol I've often "believed six impossible things before breakfast".

I think that deliberately contemplating the unlikely, the seemingly impossible, can improve lateral thinking and overall creativity. What tends to surprise me are the small things that I haven't reflected on.

Ha.

I'm quite adept at holding contradictory views;
WHY does it take two people to have two views?

And I do think about what-ifs. It's a fav
mind game.

With ToE what sort of thing could possibly disprove it?

And what would be the cascading effects?

You are so casual about it!

 

[Astrophile]

And by science I’m not referring to observable absolute truths such as small scale mutations but I’m referring to scientific theories such as macro evolution which still have yet to be proven as absolute truth. I think I need to make that clear distinction and clarify. There are certain things that we can observe in the natural world that can be proven because they are tested a quite obvious and just as an aside none of those things conflict with the biblical narrative. But there are certain theories that are just not true because they are not proven to be absolute observable truths, and that’s why I state it takes faith to believe in those things.

I don't think that there is any absolute truth, any more than there is absolute space-time. However, I think that there can be relative truth, which is supported by sufficient evidence. What do you think of quantum theory or the thermodynamic theory of heat? Do you think that there is enough supporting evidence for you to accept them provisionally, or do you reject them because they have not been proven as absolute truth?

 

[Ophiolite]

Ha.

I'm quite adept at holding contradictory views;
WHY does it take two people to have two views?

And I do think about what-ifs. It's a fav
mind game.

With ToE what sort of thing could possibly disprove it?

And what would be the cascading effects?

You are so casual about it!

There is a quote from J.B.S. Haldane that I invariably get wrong if I don't check the exact wording, so this is a paraphrase: "The universe is not only more peculiar than we imagine, it may be more peculiar than we can imagine."

Thus, not only can I definitely not answer your question "What sort of thing could possibly disprove it?" with any certainy, I am not unduly troubled by that. I like to think that one day a considerably greater intelligence than homo sapiens, perhaps a descendent, may actually figure it out. I'll make do with that.

By have already answered your question with possibilities - aliens, any one of the three thousand plus Gods worshiped by humans, computer simulation. There are probably many more, just above my pay grade. Likely? Probably not, but I don't know. I am quite certain about my uncertainty in these matters.

 

[Estrid]

There is a quote from J.B.S. Haldane that I invariably get wrong if I don't check the exact wording, so this is a paraphrase: "The universe is not only more peculiar than we imagine, it may be more peculiar than we can imagine."

Thus, not only can I definitely not answer your question "What sort of thing could possibly disprove it?" with any certainy, I am not unduly troubled by that. I like to think that one day a considerably greater intelligence than homo sapiens, perhaps a descendent, may actually figure it out. I'll make do with that.

By have already answered your question with possibilities - aliens, any one of the three thousand plus Gods worshiped by humans, computer simulation. There are probably many more, just above my pay grade. Likely? Probably not, but I don't know. I am quite certain about my uncertainty in these matters.

I know the " stranger than" quote.
But I think it can be overapplied.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Proof isn't required for faith.

That's why I have no use for faith.

Faith - definition
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Given the religious connotations of the word faith and the nature of this site, many of us do not use that word in non-religious contexts. It only leads to misunderstandings and equivocations (often false).

Belief often refers to an intellectual acceptance of facts. However, faith adds trust and commitment.

So if one trusts the science (theories) they have faith in it and are committed to it and that is faith.

Evidence? It's a matter of interpretation of information gathered and there are many interpretations of the evidence ... many.

If you want to talk about evidence, then talk about evidence. There is no point in wasting time talking about faith which is not a term scientists use in conversations about evidence.

It takes faith to believe either in creation or evolution. It's a matter of what one puts their trust and confidence in.

Really, it doesn't.

 

[eleos1954]

Why not creation and evolution? That's what most Christians and other theists believe.

Because it was when Adam and Eve sinned that brought death into the world ... if evolution is believed then death was in the world before Adam & Eve were created.

If one believes the biblical account of Genesis .... evolution and creation (according to Genesis) are mutually exclusive.

 

[eleos1954]

That's why I have no use for faith.

Given the religious connotations of the word faith and the nature of this site, many of us do not use that word in non-religious contexts. It only leads to misunderstandings and equivocations (often false).

If you want to talk about evidence, then talk about evidence. There is no point in wasting time talking about faith which is not a term scientists use in conversations about evidence.

Really, it doesn't.

If one is trusting in science or something else that's faith. Evolution is trusting in science. Creation is trusting in a creator. Both require faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why I have no use for faith.

Faith leads to proof.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You start out hoping for it, and it eventually leads to you getting your answer.

If you're going to sit in a chair, you hope that chair will hold you up, like it did a thousand times before.

You then sit down on it, and sure enough, it held.

Now your faith has led to sight, and there has come a time when you no longer "walked by faith" and are now "walking [sitting actually] by sight."

But not all of the consequences of faith are positive.

Thalidomide is a good example.

You have faith that Thalidomide will serve as a prenatal wonder drug.

Then, when the "evidence of things not seen" shows up, you realize your faith was in vain.

In short, the "substance of things hoped for is the test," and the "evidence of things not seen" is the outcome.

Kinda like this:

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, leading up to the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Yttrium]

If one is trusting in science or something else that's faith. Evolution is trusting in science. Creation is trusting in a creator. Both require faith.

Nobody needs to trust either. You're just spouting nonsense at this point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If one is trusting in science or something else that's faith. Evolution is trusting in science. Creation is trusting in a creator. Both require faith.

At some point I'm going to think your equivocation about "faith" is a deliberate attempt to make science seem like mere religion.

 

[eleos1954]

At some point I'm going to think your equivocation about "faith" is a deliberate attempt to make science seem like mere religion.

No science isn't a relegion ... and neither is to have faith exclusive to relegion.

 

[Estrid]

At some point I'm going to think your equivocation about "faith" is a deliberate attempt to make science seem like mere religion.

The doing of which is not only stupid but against forum rules.

 

[Estrid]

No science isn't a relegion ... and neither is to have faith exclusive to relegion.

And you see no difference between the faith to
believe in some god, and faith that the doorknob
Isn't coated with poison. Or that it's really gasoline,
not turpentine at the pump.


This appears to be a matter of great confusion for
you, that calls for quiet time devoted to thinking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No science isn't a relegion ... and neither is to have faith exclusive to relegion.

You don't have to go all the way to "science as religion" to imply that the two use similar types of thinking. I've done both and the thinking is very different.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you see no difference between the faith to believe in some god, and faith that the doorknob Isn't coated with poison.

Or that it's really gasoline, not turpentine at the pump.

I don't see any difference.

I have faith that it's gasoline at the pump, I act on that faith, and I reap its rewards.

The poison on the doorknob example is another matter.

I get tired of people appealing to science to scare us into disinfecting doorknobs and countertops with their "KILLS 99.9% GERMS" products.

You get a phobia about something, and people will rush right in there with their science to inflate that fear to the point that you'll buy their product.

Remember: It's 30 seconds to midnight!

And while I am praying the LORD returns before the next 30 seconds, it's certainly not to get some product sold, some underground bunker built, or some computer patch put in place, lest my toaster quits working.

If everything happened that science told us was going to happen, earth wouldn't be here now.