The blind faith of the evolutionists

[FearGod]

Do you think Darwinian evolution is a blind faith ?

[youtube]r83ROf8coSU[/youtube]
Question asked to Atheist which they could not answer - YouTube

 

[Windwalker]

Blind faith has no evidence. Are you ignorant of the fact there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution?

More importantly, why do you need evolution to be invalid in order to have faith in God. Can't God create through evolution? Simple question. Maybe your faith is a marriage to a simpler mode of thinking, and not in God at all? Perhaps?

 

[Runewolf1973]

The simple fact that everything changes with every single day that passes. Now take those little changes which happen every day and spread that over millions of years. All those little changes become rather BIG changes. Evolution at it's most basic is change over long periods of time. Change is everywhere, so how can we possibly ignore it? The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think Darwinian evolution is a blind faith ?

Absolutely! Those who accept the fact and theory of evolution do so on blind faith, without even a shred of logical reasoning or empirical evidence to support their folly. It's just so obvious!

Keep on believing that, FearGod, and my nephews will never have to compete with you for the top jobs in this world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here we go again....asking questions of the random schlub on the street
about technical matters because it speaks so strongly to science.
Imagine the fun we could have listening to some believers....
(I particularly like the claim about scientists making human-mouse hybrids.)
[youtube]Tif3l-bnMyE[/youtube]
Top 5 Most Annoying Conservative & Christian Women - YouTube

 

[misanthropic_clown]

No. I didn't get very far into the video before I got too annoyed to continue, but it strikes me that the basic thrust of the video is similar to Ken Ham's argument in his debate with Bill Nye that given things that happened millions of years ago cannot be directly observed, we cannot reasonably draw conclusions from the evidence we have. That is nonsense, deliberately designed to hand wave away the oodles of evidence from genetics and the fossil records.

The other point, that acceptance of this evidence relies on faith, is similarly nonsensical. There is a difference between the kind of faith defined as belief without evidence, and taking things "in good faith" which means that I assume the people presenting me with evidence have not tampered with it. So when I read papers and textbooks describing the experiments and evidence supporting evolution, I take this on a good faith basis, but I am nontheless seeking evidence to support the notion. What's more, the academic literature is so designed that I could repeat their work for myself, given sufficient resources. This bears no resemblance to the notion of religious faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. I didn't get very far into the video before I got too annoyed to continue, but it strikes me that the basic thrust of the video is similar to Ken Ham's argument in his debate with Bill Nye that given things that happened millions of years ago cannot be directly observed, we cannot reasonably draw conclusions from the evidence we have. That is nonsense, deliberately designed to hand wave away the oodles of evidence from genetics and the fossil records.

The other point, that acceptance of this evidence relies on faith, is similarly nonsensical. There is a difference between the kind of faith defined as belief without evidence, and taking things "in good faith" which means that I assume the people presenting me with evidence have not tampered with it. So when I read papers and textbooks describing the experiments and evidence supporting evolution, I take this on a good faith basis, but I am nontheless seeking evidence to support the notion. What's more, the academic literature is so designed that I could repeat their work for myself, given sufficient resources. This bears no resemblance to the notion of religious faith.

Hmmm....historical things which cannot be directly observed must be disregarded as evidence?
Would this standard also apply to books written centuries ago? How about to miracles?

 

[Breathe]

Do you think Darwinian evolution is a blind faith ?

I don't think so, because the theory of evolution:

a. best describes the processes
b. has mountains of evidence to support it
c. fits perfectly into things

If evolution was wrong, then many, many things would be wrong, too, to the point where some of our greatest achievements would be invalid. This may be worth making as another thread.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Hmmm....historical things which cannot be directly observed must be disregarded as evidence?
Would this standard also apply to books written centuries ago? How about to miracles?

Totally different, obviously!

 

[FearGod]

Blind faith has no evidence. Are you ignorant of the fact there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution?

More importantly, why do you need evolution to be invalid in order to have faith in God. Can't God create through evolution? Simple question. Maybe your faith is a marriage to a simpler mode of thinking, and not in God at all? Perhaps?

We are speaking about Darwinian evolution which based on mutations and natural selection and not a directed evolution by God.

It is a fact that no one know what had happened millions of year ago that forced species to evolve to a new different kinds than the previous ones.

Can we prove that God wasn't involved,so who think that God wasn't involved then he has a blind faith on Darwinian evolution and the one who think that God was involved then he has blind faith on religion.

 

[Sunstone]

...that given things that happened millions of years ago cannot be directly observed, we cannot reasonably draw conclusions from the evidence we have. That is nonsense, deliberately designed to hand wave away the oodles of evidence from genetics and the fossil records.

Indeed, it's nonsense. If it were true that we could not draw reliable conclusions based on still available evidence about things in the past we did not directly observe then we couldn't even draw reliable conclusions about such things as whether our neighbor mowed his lawn yesterday if it happened we did not actually see him mow his lawn.

 

[Revoltingest]

Totally different, obviously!

When scripture, not reason, they're heeding
results could be somewhat misleading.
When not quite the same
they give this a name...
most commonly called "special pleading".

 

[Parsimony]

We are speaking about Darwinian evolution which based on mutations and natural selection and not a directed evolution by God.

It is a fact that no one know what had happened millions of year ago that forced species to evolve to a new different kinds than the previous ones.

Can we prove that God wasn't involved,so who think that God wasn't involved then he has a blind faith on Darwinian evolution and the one who think that God was involved then he has blind faith on religion.

So you are a theistic evolutionist? What has convinced you that evolution has happened at all and to what extent?

 

[FearGod]

So you are a theistic evolutionist? What has convinced you that evolution has happened at all and to what extent?

Evidences shows that evolution was a fact,but can't say who did it.

Evolutionists dropped God from the equation,but creationists as me believe that it can't happen without an ID.

The genetic similarities actually prove that the creator was one,very similar to human design and inventions,for example human invented the vacuum tubes which was huge in size and expensive then human themselves replaced it with a different shape which was smaller and cheaper (transistors) and then humans invented the chips which contains millions of transistors in a single chip.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidences shows that evolution was a fact,but can't say who did it.

I say there is no "who", ie, evolution just happens.
It's just a natural system response.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is a fact that no one know what had happened millions of year ago that forced species to evolve to a new different kinds than the previous ones.

It is a matter of fact that we do know what happened millions of years ago that forced species to change and evolve. They were forced to adapt to an ever-changing environment and through their adaptations, certain creatures were better suited to survive than others. It continues on to this day. Creatures adapt to survive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Evidences shows that evolution was a fact,but can't say who did it.

Evolutionists dropped God from the equation,but creationists as me believe that it can't happen without an ID.

The genetic similarities actually prove that the creator was one,very similar to human design and inventions,for example human invented the vacuum tubes which was huge in size and expensive then human themselves replaced it with a different shape which was smaller and cheaper (transistors) and then humans invented the chips which contains millions of transistors in a single chip.

Change or adaptation happens naturally. No one "did it", it just happens. Do you deny that things change?

 

[FearGod]

Change or adaptation happens naturally. No one "did it", it just happens. Do you deny that things change?

It happened naturally because the designer planned for it to be so,similar to what we do with temperature and voltage control by the regulators.

 

[Windwalker]

Evidences shows that evolution was a fact,but can't say who did it.

Then why are you trying to say evolution requires blind faith? It does not. You have just annihilated your own objection, it seems.

Does evolution "deny" God? Absolutely not. It says nothing about God at all. To say anything about God at all, is to not being doing natural science. It ceases to be doing science and swerves off into being theological. If however someone looks at the fact of evolution, which you apparently accept, and interprets this as saying God doesn't exist, that all there is is the natural world, end of story, this is NOT a conclusion of science! It is a conclusion of philosophical materialism. Philosophical materialism is not science. It's philosophy. It sees the world through that mental filter the same way a person of faith sees the world through the filter of their faith.

Evolutionists dropped God from the equation,but creationists as me believe that it can't happen without an ID.

There is no such thing as "evolutionists". I accept evolution, and apparently you do too! So are you and I "evolutionists"? No, what you are arguing against is philosophical materialism. Be specific, and go after what you really see as the problem, not mistakenly and falsely demonizing evolution or science. Right?

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, to clarify, evolution was not a fact. It is a fact. It is happening right now, all the time.