-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Doesnt evolution and the Big Bang take little faith?
- Thread starter EnochSDP
- Start date
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Evolution, no. It's a proven fact.
Big Bang, a little. It's not proven, but highly likely and consistent with how the Universe works.
Big Bang, a little. It's not proven, but highly likely and consistent with how the Universe works.
Last edited:
Faith is needed only if you believe them to be inerrant truth.
I don't. They're just science, which is better described as "useful".
Plus, it's always subject to revision.
I don't. They're just science, which is better described as "useful".
Plus, it's always subject to revision.
Nope.
Edit: rather, I suppose there's a certain measure of faith in assuming that the world we see actually exists and isn't just a figment of our imaginations, but this sort of "faith" is universal and unavoidable.
Do you think if it did, though, it would lend support to your version?
I'm not sure whether you're going for the "atheists do what they condemn, so they're acting hypocritically" approach or the "science is baseless, so my alternative view wins by default" approach.
Last edited:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
This.
For the purpose of this question, what is your definition of faith?
EnochSDP
Active Member
No im just stating that you have no more foundation then a God believer.You say it is fact.lol.i love that one.then you say ,"No i cant say it is 100% fact."I mean what do you think a fact is.A fact is 100% without a doubt.Evolution holds doubt, even in the scientist thats working it, he knows his work is provable and looks like the truth but he knows there is a possibility of error.Thats not what your claiming, you claim it is fact when a fact is 100%.You take alot of little facts and estimate a big one.though it is estimates.I play poker some and i know i can get all-in with 98% chance to win and still lose thats where your at.You can have all the odds in your favor and put everything on it and still lose.Im in the same boat.difference is i have a advantage you do not.Spitirual-phenomena.I have calculations that science can use because it is against science.
EnochSDP
Active Member
Faith is belief in something without evidence.fantôme profane;2919296 said:
Faith is believing in something with evidence but without 100% assurities.
Faith is believing in something more than yourself and your reason.
Faith is knowing without reason.
Faith is having reasonable doubts and ignoring them.
Faith is putting yourself in some elses hands.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
No faith, just logical estimations based on evidence, mathematics, etc.
Yet another thread wherein "faith" is so broadly defined that it includes just
about any belief or dependency upon others. This leaves little to discuss.
By "faith by dating techniques" are you questioning the dating techniques on which these theories are dependent?
Scientific theories rely on observable evidence we can see, touch and test. We try to ring any need for faith out of them.
The evidence for evolution is currently overwhelming, with new evidence accruing all the time. Moreover, it's largely intuitive. It's mechanisms are easily understood and the their results obvious.
Big Bang, like much of physics, is not intuitive at all, but it's the only reasonable explanation of observed reality. No other alternatives currently exist.
The existence of God, on the other hand, is based on no observed or testable evidence. It's pure, unsupported speculation.
Is this multiple choice?
Nothing in science is 100%. But believe in evolution is based on overwhelming scientific evidenc. It is absolutely reasonable. Ignoring the evidence for evolution is unreasonable.
EnochSDP
Active Member
Why is your evidence any more than mine?fantôme profane;2919526 said:Is this multiple choice?
Nothing in science is 100%. But believe in evolution is based on overwhelming scientific evidenc. It is absolutely reasonable. Ignoring the evidence for evolution is unreasonable.
As you clearly say with double talk.
nothing is 100% in science but ignoring that is unreasonable.
I do question scientific methods.
I find it highly unreasonable to think a man can date billions of years back.If you can date billions of years back you should forward as well right?
How can you think someone can reasonably accept evolution without visual proof?
So you say that a species that breeds will eventlually evolve into another?
So a human being can eventually breed a whole new species over time?
My greatgreat times a million grand children will be another species all together?
Me Myself
Back to my username
I´ll put it this way for yo to understand:
The only BIOLOGISTS that dont believe in evolution are the ones who form part of a RELIGIOUS FAITH that contradicts it.
Atheists, agnostics, hinduists, buddhists, taoists, catholics and other christian biologists will tell you that evolution is a fact. Just a veryh little amount of christian biologist say it is not but they do so without evidence or proper refutal, because if they had a proper refuta you´ll find atheist, agnostics, catholics, hinduists, buddhists biologists that believed evolution not to be a fact.
Now, being a biologist, means they know about the subnject more than non-biologists.
So there is really no question.
The only BIOLOGISTS that dont believe in evolution are the ones who form part of a RELIGIOUS FAITH that contradicts it.
Atheists, agnostics, hinduists, buddhists, taoists, catholics and other christian biologists will tell you that evolution is a fact. Just a veryh little amount of christian biologist say it is not but they do so without evidence or proper refutal, because if they had a proper refuta you´ll find atheist, agnostics, catholics, hinduists, buddhists biologists that believed evolution not to be a fact.
Now, being a biologist, means they know about the subnject more than non-biologists.
So there is really no question.
No, I don't. I think you have me confused with someone else.
No, I don't.
What do "spiritual phenomena" have to do with anything? Citing them as evidence still has the same problem that anything has: it's impossible to prove with absolute certainty that reality exists and isn't just a figment of your imagination.
"Spiritual phenomena" have quite a few problems beyond this, but all the problems that real evidence is subject to, "spiritual phenomena" are subject to as well.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
As someone who is both a theist and a scientist... let me answer this as simply as possible.
No.
wa:do
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
As in dating something into the future? I don't think that's how the world works. We have yet to discover time travel, and I doubt we ever will.
You could look at the visual proof, then. There are plenty of fossils showing transition and there's plenty of genetic evidence. Do you need to see Jesus in person to know that he existed, or is other proof enough?
Yes, humans might change into a different species over time, a million generations might have us diverge into different species.
I think you're conflating faith and confidence or faith and acceptance. "Jim has faith in God", but "Jim has confidence in the Theory of Evolution", or "Jim accepts the Theory of Evolution."
The difference between faith and confidence is this: Faith is the belief that something is true in the absence of any weight of reason and evidence that it is true, or despite any weight of reason or evidence to the contrary.
Confidence is the acceptance that something is true based on a weight of reason and evidence in its favor.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
None at all. Both evolution and the big bang theory are well evidenced standing up to peer review, and both are observable.
As do all scientists. That's the Scientific Method.
I think the more appropriate word might be "unintuitive." Before you disparage dating methods you should understand them. You'll also need to explain why completely different methods yield the same results for a given application.
But there is evidence, Enoch, overwhelming evidence, visual and otherwise, which you seem to be unaware of.
No, it's not simple breeding that produces long-term change, there are mechanism's guiding the process. It's not random. These mechanisms are what the ToE is all about.
Of course they can. What's hard to understand about that? The same mechanisms are at play weather it's a protozoan or human.
This doesn't mean that they will, that depends on selective pressure, and there's also the possibility that your descendants will comprise a dozen different species, including a H. sapiens sapiens unchanged from yourself.