1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, if I didn't understand what it was you wanted, for whatever
Why?
reason, and if you really were interested in my point of view. I
would assume you'd ask it another way, if all you want to do is
take an other shot at me to run me down again, I guess you
can just do that instead.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay?
Well, if I didn't understand what it was you wanted, for whatever
reason, and if you really were interested in my point of view. I
would assume you'd ask it another way, if all you want to do is
take an other shot at me to run me down again, I guess you
can just do that instead.
Kelly
So your answer to "Why?" is "Because I didn't understand your question." Is that right?
Originally posted by KellyJayAh-ha! I've got you pegged Kelly.
I assume since you are more concern about me than what I said,
I believe the reasons I gave will be blown off, and not responded
to. DID I SAY THEY WERE WRONG? I believe you will find I
said they were faith based, which is not the same as saying they
are wrong. They must be taken on faith, they cannot be proven
wrong or right outside of another test ag ...[text shortened]... iscount those that give accurate data
because you 'BELIEVE' the data that is in error.
Kelly
You see, all your arguments come down to this word belief. You put alot of stock in this word, yet seem to not understand the full context of the word that you bandy about so fragrantly. When a person says "I believe..." what they are really saying is "I think this is true... / I think this is a true description of ....". Now, you are correct in saying that both scientists and theists (although this is not to say that you cannot have a theistic scientist) both routinely use the word believe. The important bit is the context in which they use it. A theist uses the word believe to indicate a personal conviction based upon perhaps personal experience, although normally without any direct, physical evidence. A scientist uses the word believe as a short version of "Based upon a huge body of data from numerous investigations, experiments and the logical progression made by a huge body of specialists in the field, we think this is true...". A reasonable person can see that there is a huge difference between these two standpoints, basically that of physical evidence. If you believe that the study of the natural world IS NOT a valid way to learn about the world then you inherently dismiss science, but also your everyday experiences too. If you believe that the study of the natural world IS a valid way of learning about the world then you have to start accepting the mainstream viewpoints of science, such as the age of the earth, irrespective of whether or not it offends your point of view.
It seems to me that whilst the majority of professional biologists have no problem in accepting evolution as true, christian theists with no professional training in the area immediately fancy themselves as specialists in the area, irrespective of whether they have ever read any of the literature. Amazing how much bias against science there still is by the christian church.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat have you ever seen me say that was an attempt to, inherently
Ah-ha! I've got you pegged Kelly.
You see, all your arguments come down to this word belief. You put alot of stock in this word, yet seem to not understand the full context of the word that you bandy about so fragrantly. When a person says "I believe..." what they are really saying is "I think this is true... / I think this is a true description o ...[text shortened]... iterature. Amazing how much bias against science there still is by the christian church.
dismiss science?
I don't think you have, I have said what sometimes people call facts
are nothing but things they believe to be true, which is not calling
them false, just matters of belief on their part. You make a
distinction between what people believe in, because of how they got
there. That is reasonable, in that somethings are easier to believe
than others, but when we are talking about things that cannot be
proven wrong, it is still faith.
True, " faith and belief" are used within religion, but to limit their use
because of that, and making them out to be something evil when
those words best describe what is occuring in science is, 1984ish.
I have had this conversation before as some others have noted, and
an example I have used before is walking on the ground. It is faith
to, just as walking in a house, both can lead to falls or worse. I fell
while walking on the tundra in Alaska, didn't know that the ground
only had a few inchs of dirt covering a deep hole, it appeared to be
solid ground as I stepped on it. We walk out our lives in the belief
that those things we hold true, are. If they come from science or
religion, we are people of faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAll facts are in the end just things we believe to be true.
What have you ever seen me say that was an attempt to, inherently
dismiss science?
I don't think you have, I have said what sometimes people call facts
are nothing but things they believe to be true, which is not calling
them false, just matters of belief on their part. You make a
distinction between what people believe in, because of how they got
...[text shortened]... gs we hold true, are. If they come from science or
religion, we are people of faith.
Kelly
The Earth is - roughly speaking - spherical. This is a fact. At least I believe that it's a fact. There are people - flat earthers - who disagree. Their belief is otherwise.
Scottish's point was that belief in the religious sense is different to the everyday use of the word. I don't believe the earth is spehrical in any religious sense. A religious belief is based on faith - it doesn't matter if there is evidence to the contrary of such a belief. It is believed nonetheless.
My belief in a spherical earth is not such a belief. It's not based on faith.
But it doesn't come from direct experience either.
I haven't seen that the Earth is spherical - in fact no one can (although maybe an omnipotent God could come to think of it.) I've 'connected the dots' as you love to say and concluded that a sperical earth makes sense. In fact, to be honest it's not even something I've really concluded. I trust that it's true because I've read about, and been taught about, a lot of the evidence to support it. I'm relying on the efficacy of science and scientists - since I'm not myslef a scientist and like evry other person on this beautiful spherical world of ours, I couldn't possibly know everything about everything by direct observation myself. In the end I have to rely on the observations and deductions of others.
Where you and I differ is how we treat these deductions of others. For some reason, some scientific work seems t0 you to be incorrect. For some reason it offends you although for the life of me I can't imagine why. And you've chosen to disregard it.
But to call it a belief and ignore it for that reason denigrates not only your own argument for belief, but it denigrates your own beliefs too.
Originally posted by amannionJust leave it alone. So many posts have been made and no one has progressed very far.
All facts are in the end just things we believe to be true.
The Earth is - roughly speaking - spherical. This is a fact. At least I believe that it's a fact. There are people - flat earthers - who disagree. Their belief is otherwise.
Scottish's point was that belief in the religious sense is different to the everyday use of the word. I don't believe the ...[text shortened]... ot only your own argument for belief, but it denigrates your own beliefs too.
Majority rules. Evolution wins. Down with creationism. 😛
Originally posted by KellyJayPerhaps. All I'm trying to do is to describe the differences between the contexts that theologians and scientists use the word "believe" in. They are quite different. If we think of it in those terms, you come to realise that the theologian is expressing an opinion, whilst the scientist is expounding a plausible explanation for a phenomenon based upon physical evidence and data.
What have you ever seen me say that was an attempt to, inherently
dismiss science?
I don't think you have, I have said what sometimes people call facts
are nothing but things they believe to be true, which is not calling
them false, just matters of belief on their part. You make a
distinction between what people believe in, because of how they got
...[text shortened]... gs we hold true, are. If they come from science or
religion, we are people of faith.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou seem to think that all physical evidence points towards what
Perhaps. All I'm trying to do is to describe the differences between the contexts that theologians and scientists use the word "believe" in. They are quite different. If we think of it in those terms, you come to realise that the theologian is expressing an opinion, whilst the scientist is expounding a plausible explanation for a phenomenon based upon physical evidence and data.
man comes up with in science therefore not religion? I assume this
is why a 'plausible explanation of phenomenon' can only be accepted
if it fits your world view. The universe is what it is, how we define it
basically starts with our most basic assumptions, one set has no
foundation when it comes to first cause, the other has God. It is all
the same evidence for both camps, there isn't any 'science' evidence
in this corner and 'religion' evidence in that corner. People have
been looking at the ‘evidence’ or universe since the beginning of
people. It isn’t evidence that gets rejected, it is the interpretation of
what is claimed by those looking at the evidence that does.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionI said some work of those within science must be accepted on faith,
All facts are in the end just things we believe to be true.
The Earth is - roughly speaking - spherical. This is a fact. At least I believe that it's a fact. There are people - flat earthers - who disagree. Their belief is otherwise.
Scottish's point was that belief in the religious sense is different to the everyday use of the word. I don't believe the ...[text shortened]... ot only your own argument for belief, but it denigrates your own beliefs too.
it can only be believed it cannot be proven wrong. What part of that
statement is calling it 'wrong', the thing I believe you find insulting
out of what I said, is that I'm telling you, your world view even while
you claim is based within science, does indeed have belief and faith
wrapped up in it too. Not that I am calling anything you 'believe in'
wrong, I'm just pointing out you have put your 'faith' in something
or someone.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd this from the man who believes that the world is 7,000 years old!
You seem to think that all physical evidence points towards what
man comes up with in science therefore not religion? I assume this
is why a 'plausible explanation of phenomenon' can only be accepted
if it fits your world view. The universe is what it is, how we define it
basically starts with our most basic assumptions, one set has no
foundation when ...[text shortened]... the interpretation of
what is claimed by those looking at the evidence that does.
Kelly
You cannot, despite your attempts, drag science down that way. Science isn't about personal beliefs based on gut feelings - it's about the weight of evidence. Something you seem unfamiliar with. Science, unlike religion, is not opinion.
You may say down with creationism, but where did you come from?
Who made you?
Is there something empirically about you that is all evolution?????
If so, then you are a creature that is still evolving (per Darwin).
So, what features have you evolved lately???? Hmmmmm?
Creation is the belief in one true God. Pray for Him to become
your own personal Savior. It can happen!
I still like the one about the earth being BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years old.
Or the one about other inhabitable planets.
Or the one about the big bang THEORY.
I have a question: do you read the Bible?
No, don't dismiss this as cheap banter. If you believe in evolution only
have you read the book of Genesis in the Bible?
You might come to different conclusions.
See also: answersingenesis.org
Originally posted by NosracYou're an idiot.
You may say down with creationism, but where did you come from?
Who made you?
Is there something empirically about you that is all evolution?????
If so, then you are a creature that is still evolving (per Darwin).
So, what features have you evolved lately???? Hmmmmm?
Creation is the belief in one true God. Pray for Him to become
your own personal Savior ...[text shortened]... Genesis in the Bible?
You might come to different conclusions.
See also: answersingenesis.org