They aren't going to agree with you though, because they don't have a proper definition of faith.
Instead of researching it ... like a real scientist probably should ... many of them just use Mark Twain's definition.
(And I don't remember what it is right now.)
ETA: Just looked it up:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -Mark Twain
Yes, the same old arguments I hear on these forums. The heat would vaporize the oceans, there wouldn't be enough time to generate the heat needed, yada, yada. Then they don't take in the consideration of deep, pressurized ocean water acting/reacting with the heat.
This is what you have to realize. That there is always more than one way to interpret data, to interpret evidence.
So then we go back to the presuppositions, which goes back to eyewitness accounts, which goes back to faith.
Which is why I call evolution a faith religion.
The only way to make evolution a religion, is to define it so losely that membership in the Republican party is also a "religion."
However, there is only one right way to interpret the evidence. You start with your conclusion, and then you twist or ignore the facts so that you reach that conclusion. That is the wrong way to interpret evidence.
Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion.
(Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)
Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.
Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently.
But look at Mark Twain's definition.I gave him an opportunity to defend his assertion in the thread I started "Evolution is a Religion: Reloaded." He failed to do so. The only way to make evolution a religion, is to define it so losely that membership in the Republican party is also a "religion."
But look at Mark Twain's definition.
It says we lie to ourselves.
And ... um ... just by coincidence, isn't that what I have been accused of doing? lying to myself?
That's probably one of the reasons we're always called "liars."
Maybe that's why Mark Twain's definition is the default definition among scientists here: it fits their profile of us.
Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion. (Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)
Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.
Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently. Your facts are not facts. They are inferences from the evidence and yes, they can have different conclusions which you label "twisted" just because they don't fit your particular presupposition.
Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion. (Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)
Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.
Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently. Your facts are not facts. They are inferences from the evidence and yes, they can have different conclusions which you label "twisted" just because they don't fit your particular presupposition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?