Faith.

[Skala]

You are conflating several senses of the word "faith." Given the OP, we are talking about faith in the religious sense.

I was talking about faith in the Biblical sense which is what the OP was getting it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I was talking about faith in the Biblical sense which is what the OP was getting it.

How is that different from faith in the religious sense?

 

[SeraphimSarov]

How is that different from faith in the religious sense?

I also do not see the distinction.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Standard issue answer. Unpack that for us, please.

You sound like Sam Harris.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you think Evolution is demonstrable and independently verifiable?

May I ask how one rejects evolution and yet also proposes that one race consisting of 8 individuals spawned all the races of today in 4400 years?

 

[SeraphimSarov]

You sound like Sam Harris.

No idea who that is, but for such occasions, we have the ever-benevolent Google. Search commence!

 

[SeraphimSarov]

May I ask how one rejects evolution and yet also proposes that one race consisting of 8 individuals spawned all the races of today in 4400 years?

Again, "evolution" is such a broad term that without further definition of what exactly we're discussing, any dialogue is essentially meaningless. For example, any denial of so-called "microevolution" is an exercise in willful ignorance. Perhaps we are discussing speciation and common descent?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No idea who that is, but for such occasions, we have the ever-benevolent Google. Search commence!

Sam Harris is a boss.

Again, "evolution" is such a broad term that without further definition of what exactly we're discussing, any dialogue is essentially meaningless. For example, any denial of so-called "microevolution" is an exercise in willful ignorance. Perhaps we are discussing speciation and common descent?

I was referring to "molecules to man" evolution. They reject that and yet they say that the various races evolved from one race in 4400 years.

 

[dcalling]

In North American culture, the God described in the Bible. If you point to the fact that thousands upon thousands of denominations dispute exactly who the God of the Bible is, I will simply point out that your own text asserts that God is not the author of confusion, thus indicating that there is internal conflict within Christianity itself.

The Bible does not say what God is (or says little), it is primarily a book that describes what God expect of us, i.e. to Love your neighbor as yourselves, I doubt there are any confusion about that.

 

[dcalling]

Of course it is. There's more evidence for the ToE than there is for gravity.

Any theory has to be repeatable in experiments, and yet we can't even verify the second stage of ToE, the formation of RNA in controlled environments. Gravity on the other hand can be repeatedly verified by independent sources. You are comparing an hypothesis to a theory.

 

[dcalling]

Ummm... no, natural processes aren't necessarily random. I thought you said you studied evolution?

As I said, it should be random outside of laws of physics. To be a pure evolutionist (without involving God) you have to accept that things are combined randomly and the best combination wins.

 

[bhsmte]

Any theory has to be repeatable in experiments, and yet we can't even verify the second stage of ToE, the formation of RNA in controlled environments. Gravity on the other hand can be repeatedly verified by independent sources. You are comparing an hypothesis to a theory.

Take a gander at Francis Collins; dedicated Christian, former head of the human genome project, physician and geneticist has to say about the evidence that supports evolution.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics


http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

 

[dcalling]

May I ask how one rejects evolution and yet also proposes that one race consisting of 8 individuals spawned all the races of today in 4400 years?

Where did that 4400 years come from?

Let's check this. Nowadays we know if you marry your close relative, there is a higher risk of flowed part of DNA shows up in your offspring. Then how the small groups of initial humans survived this? Doesn't it make much more sense that our initial DNA is pure and good, and it gotten corrupted over time?

 

[bhsmte]

Where did that 4400 years come from?

Let's check this. Nowadays we know if you marry your close relative, there is a higher risk of flowed part of DNA shows up in your offspring. Then how the small groups of initial humans survived this? Doesn't it make much more sense that our initial DNA is pure and good, and it gotten corrupted over time?

Then demonstrate our DNA became corrupt over time.

 

[dcalling]

Take a gander at Francis Collins; dedicated Christian, former head of the human genome project, physician and geneticist has to say about the evidence that supports evolution.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics


http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

I don't care how strong a Christian he claimed she is, or how famouse a scientist he is, if the earliest and simplest form of evolution (formation of RNA) is not proven, is not yet archived less repeatable, how can he claim ToE as a theory? If the second stage is not proven, ToE is just a hypothesis, not a theory, or else it is not science, it is faith (just a different form)

 

[dcalling]

Then demonstrate our DNA became corrupt over time.

I grow up atheist. But even when I was young I had this question, if our DNA is flowed nowadays after so many years of evolution (which supposed to gets better due to natural selection), how did the very early tiny tribes of humans survive? This one alone is a good proof by contradiction. It is not an absolute proof, but it does show creation is much likely.

 

[bhsmte]

I grow up atheist. But even when I was young I had this question, if our DNA is flowed nowadays after so many years of evolution (which supposed to gets better due to natural selection), how did the very early tiny tribes of humans survive? This one alone is a good proof by contradiction. It is not an absolute proof, but it does show creation is much likely.

Does nothing to prove creation.

 

[dcalling]

Does nothing to prove creation.

It shows creation is much likely than ToE. How do you explain it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I said, it should be random outside of laws of physics. To be a pure evolutionist (without involving God) you have to accept that things are combined randomly and the best combination wins.

No you don't. You don't understand evolution at all.

 

[dcalling]

No you don't. You don't understand evolution at all.

Mind to share what you know? Which part of evolution is not random other than natural selection?