"faith" in science

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You would probably do well to learn about the various techniques used in doing research on mutations, but no, there is no method for testing the same "strand" of DNA twice for anything. Matter of fact most testing of DNA is destructive. By the time you have extracted your data the material under investigation is no longer DNA.

Okay then the effects of prayer are reproducible.

Does this matter? I didn't insist you cure the same person more than once for your prayer test.. just that you used more than one person with the same disease.

It happens. Its just not shoved into school and supported by the government.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone
Okay then the effects of prayer are reproducible.

Good. Have you published your results?

It happens. Its just not shoved into school and supported by the government.

If it can indeed be scientifically tested and verified, then it belongs in school in science class.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


I've seen no evidence of that. Quite the opposite, actually.

Neither is anyone tired of using the same ridiculous analogy that indirect evidence of electrons is the same thing as indirect evidence of the hypothesized genetic process that is responsible for a bacteria evolving into a kangaroo. Anyone who believes that the two are equivalent is either self-deceived or incapable of rational thought.

The fact is that you can turn on a flashlight and observe what happens. The part you cannot observe is the electrons MAKING it happen. But it is still MAKING IT HAPPEN right then and there. You can observe electricity work. In real time. Right then and there. In the lab. From start to finish. No gaps in time. No guesses about how where the electrons were and what they did 500 million years ago. Click. Switch on. Light. Click. Switch off. No light. Remove batteries. Click. Switch on. No light. Rewire the flashlight. Test it again and again in various ways. Now. In the lab. Start to finish. How many times does one have to say that, and in how many ways before it sinks in?

If you could turn on a bacteria and observe it evolve into a kangaroo, THEN AND ONLY THEN would the two examples be analogous. In this case, you may not be able to observe the interaction of sub-atomic particles that caused the genetic mutations which made evolution work. But since you had real-time indirect but repeatable and testable evidence that evolution REALLY DID produce kangaroos out of bacteria, you'd finally have some hard science on your hands.

So give me a call when you can get a bacteria to evolve into a kangaroo in the lab, then I'll agree that the two examples of indirect evidence are the same. Until then, it's just a crock, because your indirect evidence of evolution isn't scientific at all.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Good. Have you published your results?

Have you? What does this have to do with Faith? LOL.


Faith means:

confident belief, reasonable expectation, believing without seeing

But an evolutionist on the other hand doesn't contain any of those definitions.

Yeah. Right.

 

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

The fact is that you can turn on a flashlight and observe what happens. The part you cannot observe is the electrons MAKING it happen. But it is still MAKING IT HAPPEN right then and there

You only have faith that the electrons are making it happen right then and there. All you can observe right here and right now is that it works when the batteries are in. You can't observe the electrons directly or indirectly right here and now. You are using your imagination to fill in the gaps of what is happening in the wires, battery, and filament. All you have demonstrated is that the flashlight works when the batteries are in and the switch is on. The rest is all your imagination.

When you can shrink down to the size of an atom and see the electrons moving then come back and talk about your theory.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone

Have you? What does this have to do with Faith? LOL.

The results are published for many, many observations of evolution. What does it have to do with faith?

Faith means:

confident belief, reasonable expectation, believing without seeing

But an evolutionist on the other hand doesn't contain any of those definitions.

Sure, by those definitions a lot of science is faith. But you weren't clear on the last point: believing without "seeing" - what? Only if you mean believing without having lived 3 billion years to observe common descent then yes we have that kind of "faith". If you mean believing without seeing rigorous objective evidence, then no, we don't have that kind.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Only if you mean believing without having lived 3 billion years to observe common descent then yes we have that kind of "faith

Okay thats settled. Thats all I was saying. 

 

[unworthyone]

See? A true belief in Evolutionary Theory requires Faith.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Thanks for conceding that you refuse to admit using it.

 

???

no no, its "refuse to use it", not "refuse to admit using it..." thats just... confusing...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
 ???

no no, its "refuse to use it", not "refuse to admit using it..." thats just... confusing...

LOL. I know it was. I was kidding....

but...

You don't have a confident belief or reasonable expectations in Evolutionary Theory?

 

[Raging Atheist]

I dont care for the connotation of "belief", but expectation, sure.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
I dont care for the connotation of "belief", but expectation, sure.

There we go! Non-biblical Faith! YaY!

 

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


There we go! Non-biblical Faith! YaY!

 

Uh huh... I also have faith that my mail will get here... eventually, however, I don't see why you're so happy... Are you trying to construe the my faith in the mailman with this definition?

"The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."

Faith has a couple definitions...
<DIV>Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. </DIV>

1. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
2. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: <CITE>keeping faith with one's supporters.</CITE>
3. often <B>Faith</B> <I>Christianity.</I> The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4. The body of dogma of a religion: <CITE>the Muslim faith.</CITE>
5. A set of principles or beliefs. "

&nbsp;

 

[Raging Atheist]

Perhaps you're happy that a familiar word has a definition I can ascribe to too?&nbsp; Making us closer?&nbsp; I'm also caucasion... are you caucasion?&nbsp; That would make us closer...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist

Uh huh... I also have faith that my mail will get here... eventually, however, I don't see why you're so happy... Are you trying to construe the my faith in the mailman with this definition?&nbsp;

No. I'm just stating&nbsp;a belief&nbsp;in&nbsp;Evolutionary Theory requires Faith. Thats it.

&nbsp;

Thats what this thread is about.

 

[unworthyone]

How about this one? What do you have more Faith in, the mailman or evolutionary theory?

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


No. I'm just stating&nbsp;a belief&nbsp;in&nbsp;Evolutionary Theory requires Faith. Thats it.

No, its a "faith" and "belief" that Evolutionary Theory works consistently, both of which can be thrown out if it&nbsp;ever DOESN'T work.&nbsp; Unlike Christianity where you're stuck with it whether or not your prayers get answered.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone
How about this one? What do you have more Faith in, the mailman or evolutionary theory?

A stupid question, but I would say about equal for both.&nbsp; Unless there is a natural disaster, in which case I would favor evolution because natural disasters have a way of instigating natural selection, in which case a flood might pick off the mailman.&nbsp;

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
No, its a "faith" and "belief" that Evolutionary Theory works consistently, both of which can be thrown out if it&nbsp;ever DOESN'T work.&nbsp; Unlike Christianity where you're stuck with it whether or not your prayers get answered.

Some believe we're stuck with evolution too? Don't you?

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
A stupid question, but I would say about equal for both.&nbsp; Unless there is a natural disaster, in which case I would favor evolution because natural disasters have a way of instigating natural selection, in which case a flood might pick off the mailman.&nbsp;

Ok cool. I don't think I had any real point to asking you but to just see where you stood on it.

What things would prohibit your&nbsp;faith in evolution?