The tip of the ice berg

[Astrid]

I'm not trying to argue it.I just said some of the theory is hard for me to accept or believe and elements are being presented as facts that are part of the theory. I have actually learned a lot from these discussions aside from what some do. Most people make informed intelligent arguments

What elements are presented as fact?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would certainly expect to fall. But that doesn't prove gravity, it just demonstrates that something causes me to move in a certain direction. Could be gravity, could be a god pushing/pulling me, could be an as yet unknown force. There are a number of possible explanations, but the most plausible one is gravity.

So is it safe to say you have a belief in gravity? even though you can't prove it?

 

[ottawak]

So is it safe to say you have a belief in gravity? even though you can't prove it?

No. I accept that "gravity" is the best currently available scientific explanation for the force I experience.

 

[AV1611VET]

So is it safe to say you have a belief in gravity? even though you can't prove it?

No. I accept that "gravity" is the best currently available scientific explanation for the force I experience.

 

[ottawak]

Scientists look at the evidence and draws conclusions about it in an attempt to understand the phenomenon which produced it. Sometimes they're right in their conclusions and sometimes not. Sometimes they think they're right but new evidence proves they were not. Science marches on, and rarely has any effect on me directly, so I am happy to go about my business, taking scientific conclusions with the grain of salt which scientists always offer with them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's ok, AV -- you don't have to understand it for it to benefit you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So is it safe to say you have a belief in gravity? even though you can't prove it?

No, it is not safe to do so.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it is not safe to do so.

I think you're confused.

If you step off of a building, I'm going to go out on a limb [pun intended] and say you believe you will fall.

And I'll even take it a step further [pun intended]:

I'm going to assume you WON'T step off a building for that very reason.

I could be wrong though.

I also think the airline industry takes great strides in working to overcome gravity by designing its products accordingly.

 

[BPPLEE]

What elements are presented as fact?

We already had that discussion

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We already had that discussion

We saw a claim, but that's it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you're confused.

No, that would be you.

If you step off of a building, I'm going to go out on a limb [pun intended] and say you believe you will fall.

In colloquial terms, that is correct.

And I'll even take it a step further [pun intended]:

I'm going to assume you WON'T step off a building for that very reason.

I could be wrong though.

I also think the airline industry takes great strides in working to overcome gravity by designing its products accordingly.

How does that demonstrate a belief in gravity?

Oh, wait. This is another of your semantic games, amiright?

 

[driewerf]

Even if I abandoned my faith and no longer believed in God

But why would that imply the loss of your faith? Plenty of people do believe in god and understand and accept the ToE.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of christians world wide do accept the ToE and the vast majority of creationists world wide aren't christian but muslim.

it would be hard to believe that my ancestors didn't walk upright and lived as animals and even harder to believe that they evolved into humans with no one directing the process.

Sometimes science is "hard to believe". Quantum mechanics is hard to believe. The Theory of relativity is hard to believe. It was once hard to believe that the continents move or the the Earth is a globe. But in all these cases the evidence was so compelling that there was no other choice but to accept the evidence. "X is hard to believe" isn't a very strong argument. It's even a very weak one.

As for determining how it happened can we trust the reasoning of a mind that evolved from the mind of a monkey? (To paraphrase Darwin)

Again an excellent illustration of the OP. Don't argue the evidence, don't argue the data. Just poison the well. "We can't trust a brain that is barely a monkey brain". Which is a direct attack on the Scientific Method and hence on science.
The ToE is but the tip of the iceberg. It's all of the sciences that are at stake.

 

[driewerf]

I can't argue with people who know more about evolution than I do. I was just explaining why it's hard for me to believe. I would say it takes faith but people who believe in evolution don't like that word or feel it attaches to them

It doesn't take faith. It takes study. Hard, painful, time consuming study. That's the bad news.
The good news is that there is plenty of study material available. For free. From youtube videos "evolution made easy" upto university level textbooks. If you ask for it I want to look for links (though you could do that yourself too).
But what fascinates me is the question that while you admit you don't understand the ToE you feel emboldened enough to reject it. Do you do that with neurochemistry too? With seismology? with superconductor physics?

 

[Astrid]

We already had that discussion

None are presented as fact except by the ignorant so
why are you still bringing it up

 

[Astrid]

But why would that imply the loss of your faith? Plenty of people do believe in god and understand and accept the ToE.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of christians world wide do accept the ToE and the vast majority of creationists world wide aren't christian but muslim.

Sometimes science is "hard to believe". Quantum mechanics is hard to believe. The Theory of relativity is hard to believe. It was once hard to believe that the continents move or the the Earth is a globe. But in all these cases the evidence was so compelling that there was no other choice but to accept the evidence. "X is hard to believe" isn't a very strong argument. It's even a very weak one.

Again an excellent illustration of the OP. Don't argue the evidence, don't argue the data. Just poison the well. "We can't trust a brain that is barely a monkey brain". Which is a direct attack on the Scientific Method and hence on science.
The ToE is but the tip of the iceberg. It's all of the sciences that are at stake.

I think the "loss of faith" is in themselves,
as being able to rigthly judge what the True Faith,
and all it implies.
Tough to admit any error, the longer
and louder its defended, the harder.

 

[BPPLEE]

But why would that imply the loss of your faith? Plenty of people do believe in god and understand and accept the ToE.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of christians world wide do accept the ToE and the vast majority of creationists world wide aren't christian but muslim.

Sometimes science is "hard to believe". Quantum mechanics is hard to believe. The Theory of relativity is hard to believe. It was once hard to believe that the continents move or the the Earth is a globe. But in all these cases the evidence was so compelling that there was no other choice but to accept the evidence. "X is hard to believe" isn't a very strong argument. It's even a very weak one.

Again an excellent illustration of the OP. Don't argue the evidence, don't argue the data. Just poison the well. "We can't trust a brain that is barely a monkey brain". Which is a direct attack on the Scientific Method and hence on science.
The ToE is but the tip of the iceberg. It's all of the sciences that are at stake.

It was Darwin that said it

 

[BPPLEE]

I think the "loss of faith" is in themselves,
as being able to rigthly judge what the True Faith,
and all it implies.
Tough to admit any error, the longer
and louder it defendec, the harder.

To you someone must accept the TOE or they are wrong. To you there is no room to question be skeptical or reject it. You have more faith than you give yourself credit for

 

[BPPLEE]

It doesn't take faith. It takes study. Hard, painful, time consuming study. That's the bad news.
The good news is that there is plenty of study material available. For free. From youtube videos "evolution made easy" upto university level textbooks. If you ask for it I want to look for links (though you could do that yourself too).
But what fascinates me is the question that while you admit you don't understand the ToE you feel emboldened enough to reject it. Do you do that with neurochemistry too? With seismology? with superconductor physics?

I didn't say that I didn't understand the TOE I said I'm not going to argue with people who know more about it than I do. I understand it but I'm not an expert on it. .It's actually abiogenesis that I don't believe just happened. There are elements of TOE like natural selection I believe

 

[AV1611VET]

How does that demonstrate a belief in gravity?

For one thing, it shows you have a fear of doing just that.

And even if you weren't fearful, if you brought a parachute with you, it is because you believe in gravity.

In other words, your actions (or inactions) speak louder than your words.

 

[Astrid]

To you someone must accept the TOE or they are wrong. To you there is no room to question be skeptical or reject it. You have more faith than you give yourself credit for

Kinda mean spirited thing to make up.
No signs there that remote viewing- tele mindredaing is
your thing.