Faith vs Faith

[jimbob]

yeah sorry guys. i kinda went off into a rant. i didn't even understand my own post *is ashamed*

basically my gist was, natural selection isn't evolution. natural selection allows certain breeds to form defined characteristics different from before. evolution is the changing completely of a type of animal. i have a pretty good source to explain what i'm trying to say, i'll spend some time scouring my bookshelves tonight.

anyway guys, i'm not for or against evolution. i'm just saying that evolution needs more evidence to upgrade from a theory, while natural selection is fact. therefore, the two can't be the same.


and real quick.....i'm not entirely sure that the whole milk thing is true. Ancient villages in India dating like 6000 years ago...hold on, i'm going to go find what the people are called ....

okay back. Harappa was the civilization. anyway, there is proof that dairy cows were raised. i guess this was before cows were holy or whatnot, but if they were dairy cows were raised, can't we safely assume that milk was used by the people?

or perhaps the harappa people just acquired the ability sooner then others. just figured i should bring that up. i don't want my entire sophomore year or high school history to go to waste.

 

[painted wolf]

not nessisarily, we don't drink pigs milk we just eat them. Its perfectly logical to assume that milking cows came far later once they were quite domesticated. Its hard to imagine someone trying to milk an animal just a few generations removed from an Aurochs.
Like someone trying to milk a Bison.

anyway, besides that, we only domesticated them a few thousand years ago. Egypt has the oldest records I know of milk drinking. 3,000 odd years ago. Just about the right timing.

Modern Dairy cattle are fairly new late 17th-early 18th century or so.

naturally this mutation didn't happin everywhere, but spread through the population over the next several thousand years with the cows.

wa:do
ps. Natural selection is also a theory in the scientific sence, as is gravity and germs causing illness.

 

[Quiddity]

you're misunderstanding.

Adults loose the ability to digest milk, this is part of the weaning process. (one of the worst things you can give your cat is actually milk, they love the taste but can't digest it properly)
Our mutation lets us digest milk into adulthood, not only our own kind but that of other animals. Which is extra wierd because they contain "formulas"/protiens that are specific to thier species. Cow milk is intended for cows, dogs milk for dogs.

wa:do

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. I read an article recently that a women's breast milk is specific for her child. Pretty cool stuff.

 

[Shortandy]

Faith is a requirement in evolution because there is no proof that a monkey became a human. I put it that way since some of you hold to an understanding that "species" is an ambiguous word. The transitional forms are not found and no scientist has observed one animal turning into another one. Is there evidence that change happens within a species? Yes there is. However macro-evolution is not proof in micro-evolution.

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion. You have faith that science is correct. Once we get over this hurdle we can discuss other things.

 

[Shortandy]

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. I read an article recently that a women's breast milk is specific for her child. Pretty cool stuff.

I went to a breast-feeding class with a friend of mine. I learned that donkey milk is actually closer to human milk than any other. I found that to be most interesting to say the least.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's unfortunate and counterproductive for people of faith to equate a scientific presupposition of naturalism with any type of theological construct.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Faith is a requirement in evolution because there is no proof that a monkey became a human. I put it that way since some of you hold to an understanding that "species" is an ambiguous word. The transitional forms are not found and no scientist has observed one animal turning into another one. Is there evidence that change happens within a species? Yes there is. However macro-evolution is not proof in micro-evolution.

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion. You have faith that science is correct. Once we get over this hurdle we can discuss other things.

It would be more constructive if the person pretending to guide the conversation had even a basic knowledge of either science or (any) faith/religion.

 

[Draka]

Faith is a requirement in evolution because there is no proof that a monkey became a human. I put it that way since some of you hold to an understanding that "species" is an ambiguous word. The transitional forms are not found and no scientist has observed one animal turning into another one. Is there evidence that change happens within a species? Yes there is. However macro-evolution is not proof in micro-evolution.

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion. You have faith that science is correct. Once we get over this hurdle we can discuss other things.

You did not even look at the links I provided obviously. As you are so obviously unwilling to see the proof, I submit that you are the one with a faith issue. Your faith in your belief that evolution is false and unproven is so great that you are unwilling to even look at any proof.

And...what do you mean by saying that people who recognize evolution as fact base all their ethics and morals on it? How on this green Earth do you base ethics and morals on a proven scientific theory? You might as well say that people are basing their morals on gravity. :areyoucra That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

You also don't seem to differentiate between different classifications of "faith" do you? Having faith that there is a great supernatural creator god that plunked a man and woman into a garden is an entirely different type of faith than my saying that I have faith that my hubby will come home from work around 7pm tonight. I have faith in my ability to read and comprehend scientific studies. I have faith that those conducting the research have been to college like me and are educated. You have faith that you know how to type well enough to post on a forum like this. You have faith, no matter how ill-placed, that you are right on this subject.

There are different kinds of faith. And to equate the severity of faith it takes to believe in God and miracles and Creation to the faith in myself to be intelligent enough to understand scientific writings and the faith I have in others to write them honestly is quite the slap in the face to both sides of the equation.

To believe in evolution is not a "leap of faith". It is recognizing reality and fact.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You did not even look at the links I provided obviously. As you are so obviously unwilling to see the proof, I submit that you are the one with a faith issue. Your faith in your belief that evolution is false and unproven is so great that you are unwilling to even look at any proof.

And...what do you mean by saying that people who recognize evolution as fact base all their ethics and morals on it? How on this green Earth do you base ethics and morals on a proven scientific theory? You might as well say that people are basing their morals on gravity. :areyoucra That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

You also don't seem to differentiate between different classifications of "faith" do you? Having faith that there is a great supernatural creator god that plunked a man and woman into a garden is an entirely different type of faith than my saying that I have faith that my hubby will come home from work around 7pm tonight. I have faith in my ability to read and comprehend scientific studies. I have faith that those conducting the research have been to college like me and are educated. You have faith that you know how to type well enough to post on a forum like this. You have faith, no matter how ill-placed, that you are right on this subject.

There are different kinds of faith. And to equate the severity of faith it takes to believe in God and miracles and Creation to the faith in myself to be intelligent enough to understand scientific writings and the faith I have in others to write them honestly is quite the slap in the face to both sides of the equation.

To believe in evolution is not a "leap of faith". It is recognizing reality and fact.

Well said!

Transitory species have been found, anyway. According to evolutionary theory, we're all in transition.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are different kinds of faith. And to equate the severity of faith it takes to believe in God and miracles and Creation to the faith in myself to be intelligent enough to understand scientific writings and the faith I have in others to write them honestly is quite the slap in the face to both sides of the equation.

It's simply intellectually dishonest (whether intended or through ignorance) to equate the affirmation of a theological system with naturalism. Faith in God is not an assumption that guides rational thought, but the affirmation of an entire theological system because God must be further defined. Naturalism begins with the simple assumption that the scientific method can explain nature without supernatural explanations.

So theism and naturalism do begin with assumptions, but these assumptions cannot be equated as "faith." Faith in God is complex, but the assumption that the supernatural exists or not is exceptionally vague and not logically related to the existence of God in any way.

 

[Draka]

It's simply intellectually dishonest (whether intended or through ignorance) to equate the affirmation of a theological system with naturalism. Faith in God is not an assumption that guides rational thought, but the affirmation of an entire theological system because God must be further defined. Naturalism begins with the simple assumption that the scientific method can explain nature without supernatural explanations.

So theism and naturalism do begin with assumptions, but these assumptions cannot be equated as "faith." Faith in God is complex, but the assumption that the supernatural exists or not is exceptionally vague and not logically related to the existence of God in any way.

It is an entirely different severity of faith. It takes a great deal of faith and belief and searching to believe in any religion. It takes an entirely different type and level of faith to believe in the scientific presentation of a natural phenomenon. It isn't a stretch to understand how evaporation and precipitation works, but is quite the stretch of ourselves and our faith to place our beliefs in our respective religions.

It just seems that someone else here needs to understand the difference.


Oh, and shortandy, it appears that you don't think that it is possible to be a theist and evolutionist at the same time. You couldn't be more wrong if that is the case. :tsk:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is an entirely different severity of faith.

The "severity" of faith that you wrongly attribute to a naturalistic assumption and a theistic system stretches the definition of "faith" that makes it completely inapplicable to both.

Both theism and naturalism begin with assumptions that are logically and scientifically improvable in the ultimate sense. That is, naturalism begins with the assumption that the supernatual does not explain the natural, or that the supernatural does not exist. Theism begins with the assumption that the supernatural does exist

Faith is the identification of the finished product of some other beliefs - the result of further myth-making on the assumption that the supernatural exists. Science is the ongoing product of a well-formed method and has no faith whatsoever, being based completely on the method.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Clearly the issue here is not evolution or theism but the definition and nature of faith. I agree with Draka and angellous_evangellous on this point that Shortandy has a misconception of what faith is.

 

[Draka]

The "severity" of faith that you wrongly attribute to a naturalistic assumption and a theistic system stretches the definition of "faith" that makes it completely inapplicable to both.

Both theism and naturalism begin with assumptions that are logically and scientifically improvable in the ultimate sense. That is, naturalism begins with the assumption that the supernatual does not explain the natural, or that the supernatural does not exist. Theism begins with the assumption that the supernatural does exist

Faith is the identification of the finished product of some other beliefs - the result of further myth-making on the assumption that the supernatural exists. Science is the ongoing product of a well-formed method and has no faith whatsoever, being based completely on the method.

A_E, I was trying to prove my point as to how shortandy is using the word. He is using "faith" in that matter, so that's how I was trying to ursurp it. By showing all the different ways the one word is being used. I'm sorry if it didn't get understood that way.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A_E, I was trying to prove my point as to how shortandy is using the word. He is using "faith" in that matter, so that's how I was trying to ursurp it. By showing all the different ways the one word is being used. I'm sorry if it didn't get understood that way.

All's fair in love and war.

 

[camanintx]

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion.

If my ethics and morality are based on what is required for me to interact with other people in society, how does the question of how we got here have anything to do with it?

 

[Draka]

If my ethics and morality are based on what is required for me to interact with other people in society, how does the question of how we got here have anything to do with it?

Yeah, I had a hard time understanding that one as well. I said as much too. I also would like to know how it is that a person who accepts evolution is "basing their lives on it"? I mean, really, I base how the human race has gotten to this point on it, but not my life. :areyoucra

 

[Prometheus]

I understand that science has observed evolution, but which kind? They have witnessed change within a species but they have witnessed a change where something is going from one species to another therefore my original statment is still valid in that there is zero observatory proof for evolution.

To see one species change to another takes far too long for anyone to observe in one lifetime.

However, we know that a continuous line of small changes over short periods of time amount to large changes over long periods of time. Humans walk very slowly, but given enough time, we can walk from New York, NY to San Diego, CA. It's a huge change of location accomplished through very gradual movement. So, when we observe tiny changes in a species in an ongoing process, we know that in millions of years time that can have a drastic effect. It can change one species into another.

So it is still in a fact a theory and not absolute fact; at this point. Could it be proven? Sure but academic and logicall integrity demands that we all at least admitt that it is not proven yet. What are the facts? There is a world we live in, filled with all types of plants and animals. Many are extrodinarily complecated and some are not. The theory of evolution tries to explain the facts we have.

Every heard of gravity? Atoms? Electricity?

All theories.

When you have an explanation which accounts for all the evidence, that can make testable predictions and is falsifiable, you have a theory. The theory of evolution does exactly this with millions of individual evidences. In all the discoveries made in chemistry, biology, paleontology, astronomy, etc., none of it has contradicted evolution.

Believe in Evolution. That is fine with me. But one can not say it is a faithless belief. You have faith that what evolutionist tell you is true, although it is not proven just like the theist has faith that what he or she has been told is fact.

It's still not the same type of belief. The type of faith required for God is the same type of faith children have in Santa Claus, faeries and the Lochness Monster. The type of faith required for evolution is the same type you have when you think touching a red hot stove will burn you.