the science of faith.

[mycorrhiza]

I've always understood species to be a group with similar traits within a genus that is accepted by multiple people to be a species. As I've said the definition has changed over time to fit the idea of evolution. Fixity of Species - Answers in Genesis. Since there is confusion in species about where micro and macro evolution began and end lets talk about genus. For macro evolution to be proven there would have to be changes in genus not just species. Where is your evidence for that?

It wasn't changed to fit evolution, it was changed because of new evidence. There have been a few reclassifications that came with the ability to map plant and animal genomes.

Just add the ability to produce fertile offspring and you've got the common scientific definition of species, which we have seen being transcended many times. What is your main argument against the scientific definition of species? The link you provided just says that species = genus, which renders the whole modern taxonomic system useless.

As a genus consists of many different species, you will see changes in the species, but not directly in the whole genus, because it's only loosely connected. If we suddenly saw a whole genus change into a completely different genus, that would be evidence against the current understanding of evolution.

Macroevolution deals with transcending species, not genus. Please do not move the goalposts. Also, macro- and microevolution are rarely used as terms by biologists. They deal with the exact same process. There is no evidence for a genetic barrier that allows for microevolution but stops macroevolution. If we're going to discuss science, we should do it on the terms of modern science.

 

[Copernicus]

I've always understood species to be a group with similar traits within a genus that is accepted by multiple people to be a species. As I've said the definition has changed over time to fit the idea of evolution. Fixity of Species - Answers in Genesis. Since there is confusion in species about where micro and macro evolution began and end lets talk about genus. For macro evolution to be proven there would have to be changes in genus not just species. Where is your evidence for that?

Gseeker, one of the weaknesses of the creationist literature (besides those having already been pointed out) is that it ignores the fact that evolution is supported by evidence that is even stronger than the fossil record. Darwin did not have a very rich record in his time, and his scientific proof did not rely on it. It relied on the distribution of species, not to mention corroboration from centuries of animal and plant breeding. He did not even know the genetic mechanism that drove evolution, nor did we even know about DNA, another type of evidence that showed up only a half century ago. The fossil record did not just corroborate Darwin's basic discovery. It continues to do so with every new discovery. The very best scientific theories are those corroborated from multiple sources of information and which make predictions about future discoveries that never fail. That is why evolution is considered a scientific fact that stands as the foundation of modern biology. Not only have we witnessed evolution inside and outside the lab, but we have never encountered any plausible alternative explanation for all of the different phenomena that it explains.

 

[gseeker]

Great I now believe in evolution but to bad I just have to accept what scientists tell me since I do not have the knowledge or capacity to research what they tell me. Oh wait, that was my entire point isn't it? That id have to accept something on faith be it God or scientific study.

 

[gseeker]

You have to use a designation between macro and micro evolution unless you are saying that God created the many genus and that genetics simply alter the genus into what we now define as multiple species.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Great I now believe in evolution but to bad I just have to accept what scientists tell me since I do not have the knowledge or capacity to research what they tell me. Oh wait, that was my entire point isn't it? That id have to accept something on faith be it God or scientific study.

You could just look up the evidence as there is plenty of papers easily available online. The problem with God is that you can't look up any scientific evidence for His existence, because there is none.

If both science and religion are the same, then why do we choose to go to doctors instead of homeopaths? Both fields must be accepted on faith according to the views you present. Ain't the evidence backing something enough? Another example: Nutritionist versus breatharianist, are they equal when it comes to the knowledge of nutrition and health?

We don't need to personally observe the evidence to know that it exists. What faith here is based on is whether or not there is evidence. If there is lots of evidence, then there is no need for faith.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You have to use a designation between macro and micro evolution unless you are saying that God created the many genus and that genetics simply alter the genus into what we now define as multiple species.

There's no difference between the processes. Microevolution is variation within a species, while macroevolution is variation beyond species. The terms are barely even used in biology as they misrepresent how evolution actually works.

Genus is not something that is set in stone. The taxonomic system is created by man. Evolution works firstly on an individual level, and then as the genes are passed on, on a population level. We don't expect a genus to change into another, because that's not how evolution works. A population can diverge from it's original genus through a long evolutionary process, though, and thus a new genus is created. Genus is, once again, a human classification.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Could you provide me with a single peer-reviewed scientific paper from the last 10 years that supports creationism or debunks evolution?

The only way to disprove science is through science.

 

[gseeker]

You could just look up the evidence as there is plenty of papers easily available online. The problem with God is that you can't look up any scientific evidence for His existence, because there is none.

If both science and religion are the same, then why do we choose to go to doctors instead of homeopaths? Both fields must be accepted on faith according to the views you present. Ain't the evidence backing something enough?

We don't need to personally observe the evidence to know that it exists. What faith here is based on is whether or not there is evidence. If there is lots of evidence, then there is no need for faith.

Uh sir, reading a paper on a subject is not proof the same way reading the Bible doesn't prove God. Please try again.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Uh sir, reading a paper on a subject is not proof the same way reading the Bible doesn't prove God. Please try again.

The papers show the evidence as reported by the findings. Sure, we must trust that the whole scientific community isn't conspiring against knowledge, but the scientific process works and if we want we can look at the evidence. I could visit a paleontological museum, for example, or ask a botanist to show me the genome mappings of plants.

I cannot ask a priest to show me God.

 

[gseeker]

You still have to accept their interpretation of the evidence. Isn't that faith and similar to asking a priest about God? I'm sure that priest would have evidence that could be interpreted by him as God done it. LOL so its faith either way.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You still have to accept their interpretation of the evidence. Isn't that faith and similar to asking a priest about God? I'm sure that priest would have evidence that could be interpreted by him as God done it. LOL so its faith either way.

There's a huge difference between drawing a scientifically sound conclusion from the evidence presented and twisting the evidence to fit in an already existing agenda, however, disregarding all forms of scientific method. A hypothesis is thoroughly tested and peer-reviewed before it becomes a theory.

The priest would not be able to provide a single peer-reviewed scientific study that showed any evidence whatsoever of God.

If I become a biologist, am I allowed to say that I don't accept evolution on faith, but rather on knowledge?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Is modern medicine accepted on faith? Is homeopathy just as sound as regular medicine?
Is nutritional science accepted on faith? Is breatharinism just as sound as a healthy diet?

 

[gseeker]

You are allowed to say anything you want, that's the beauty of being human. What I am arguing though is that you accept any theory on faith. You do not see it yourself and you can't prove it yourself someone tells you something writes it down for you and you accept the theory as being sound. Many theories have been accepted this way by the masses and many theories were later proven wrong. If you believe evolution is real you are in effect having faith in two things. That scientists are interpretation of what they are seeing is correct and since you say evolution is a fact, that you have faith that those scientists wont be proven wrong later on.

 

[gseeker]

You keep mentioning medicine. Some cures work for some people and for some people those same cures don't work. For some people homeopathic medicine does work likely through a persons own mind. Either way that individual can judge for himself because he is experiencing the cure first hand. Tnot the same with macro evolution.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You are allowed to say anything you want, that's the beauty of being human. What I am arguing though is that you accept any theory on faith. You do not see it yourself and you can't prove it yourself someone tells you something writes it down for you and you accept the theory as being sound. Many theories have been accepted this way by the masses and many theories were later proven wrong. If you believe evolution is real you are in effect having faith in two things. That scientists are interpretation of what they are seeing is correct and since you say evolution is a fact, that you have faith that those scientists wont be proven wrong later on.

Call it faith if you want to. I'd rather call it trust, as it's backed up by plenty of evidence. There is nothing that points towards evolution being proved wrong, especially since it has been directly observed. I'm not saying that the current understanding of evolution will stand forever, but evolution itself will. It's accepted by 99,9% of all biologists and that alone is stunning. They don't all agree on the mechanics and specifics, but they all accept evolution. There are very few creationist biologists, because nothing in biology points towards creationism being true, and this is why creationists keep twisting facts, quote mining, lying and deliberately misinterpreting evidence, and this is why they don't submit their work for peer review.

There's no viable alternative to evolution, and all of the evidence points towards evolution being correct. I've seen the three pillars of evolution in action (variation, selection and heredity) and I've read about it quite a lot. I'm even contemplating becoming a botanist. I have never directly observed Uranus, but I wouldn't say that I need faith to accept that it exists.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You keep mentioning medicine. Some cures work for some people and for some people those same cures don't work. For some people homeopathic medicine does work likely through a persons own mind. Either way that individual can judge for himself because he is experiencing the cure first hand. Tnot the same with macro evolution.

No no, if we're going by the standards you set, then we cannot accept medicine just because it seems to be effectful. Because we cannot know if it was the medicine itself that cured us or if it was the divine power of God. And before we use medicine we must draw the conclusion that we're willing to use it, because we think it will work. If religious faith and scientific knowledge are both faith, then we should have quite a difficult time deciding whether we should use homeopathy or conventional cures if we have used neither for that particular illness beforehand.

Do you see the problem with saying that belief in the supernatural is equal to trust in the well backed up scientific theories? Sure, we could define faith is "trust or belief in anything whatsoever that you haven't personally experienced", but that makes it too broad to be useful. I have never been to Russia, but that doesn't mean that I need the same kind of faith to accept that Russia exists that I would need to accept that God exists. Whether or not both can be considered faith is irrelevant. It's whether or not they can be considered the same type of faith that is the point. I could simply go to Russia (well, not on my budget, but you get the point), but I can't simply go to meet God. The same goes for evolution, I could study it and look at the evidence, but I cannot look at the evidence for God. If we consider both faith, then they're completely different forms of faith.

I know it can be reassuring to feel that other people's world views are based on the same things as one's own, but that simply isn't the case. Personal evidence and scientific evidence will never be on the same level. But just because science has explained evolution doesn't mean that there is no place for God in the world. I think I saw you mention that you were going through a crisis of faith, and this topic might be a way of dealing with it, but there is no need to put faith in God on the same level as trust in scientific knowledge. Just accept your faith for what it is instead and put your trust in your God. If accepting a scientific theory means that you have to slightly shift your beliefs, then let it be so. You don't need to fully tear them down, just give them a little nudge. If there is a God, isn't it much more amazing if He created such an amazing process as evolution rather than poofing things into existence? You don't seem to believe in the infallibility of the Bible, so why cannot the creation be different than described?

 

[Tonix]

The problem with your arguement is that it forgets the context. Believing in God based on faith alone requires accepting that an omnipotent entity with anger issues that resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of people and the flooding of the entire planet is the deity you wish to serve and place your trust in. Doesn't sound like the best investment of faith in my opinion.

 

[gseeker]

First let me assure you that I do read everything you write. Second you put words in my mouth, I never said anything about the divine power of God healing a person. I was referring to the power of ones own mind, the placebo effect that you mentioned. That can be applied to both homeopathic cures and modern medicine. My crisis of faith is not about if God exists because I am sure one does exist. It has much more to do with spiritual and emotional healing. I don't debate because of that its just that I don't want to be a great debater I want to be a masterdebator. LOL kidding anyway belief in things unseen to me is faith if you will not faith in the end results but faith in the process that leads to the results.

 

[mycorrhiza]

First let me assure you that I do read everything you write. Second you put words in my mouth, I never said anything about the divine power of God healing a person. I was referring to the power of ones own mind, the placebo effect that you mentioned. That can be applied to both homeopathic cures and modern medicine. My crisis of faith is not about if God exists because I am sure one does exist. It has much more to do with spiritual and emotional healing. I don't debate because of that its just that I don't want to be a great debater I want to be a masterdebator. LOL kidding anyway belief in things unseen to me is faith if you will not faith in the end results but faith in the process that leads to the results.

I used the divine power of God as an example because you had used God as an example before, saying that it was just a matter of how we interpreted the evidence. It can't be applied to modern medicine, because if it's placebo then it isn't medicine.

So my belief in the existence of Russia is just the same as belief in the existence of God, ghosts or unicorns? I would say that it's a completely different kind of belief, one that can be backed up by evidence. Once again, I could look at the evidence for evolution, but there's no scientific evidence for God that I could look at. If I do become a biologist and I personally see the evidence for speciation, can I then say that I accept evolution because it is a fact, and not because of "faith"?

 

[gseeker]

The problem with your arguement is that it forgets the context. Believing in God based on faith alone requires accepting that an omnipotent entity with anger issues that resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of people and the flooding of the entire planet is the deity you wish to serve and place your trust in. Doesn't sound like the best investment of faith in my opinion.

First you are forgetting several important issues. One you don't know what God I believe in. Rather my interpretation of who God is is important. Two you don't know what my personality is and what kind of God I would connect with. If God is a wrathful God who am I to judge God? If God made me in him image no wonder for the past 6 years I spent as a bouncer that I enjoyed smashing peoples faces off of brick walls. You payed way to much credit to the Christian part than you did the antisocial part of my title. Finally to accept that God exists is independent belief even if you don't like that God. I can believe in God but still resent him for giving me life.