- Mar 23, 2004
- 249,102
- 114,198
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
"Trusting" ANY theory requires MUCH faith in my opinion.
You or anyone else is entitled to disagree.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your opinion and I don't think you can determine the reasoning behind why others trust a theory. You can always ask them though, instead of claiming to know why they believe in a theory.
For instance, I have seen many on these boards, claim they believe in a theory because of all the evidence to support it and they trust theory and no faith is required, because faith is only required, when evidence is absent.
Francis Collins and his take on the evidence that so strongly supports Darwin's theory, would be a good example:
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/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2
False. That is what evidence we do have. To use conjecture to determine what could have been before is just that conjecture. I have claimed that all the evidence that is available to us is of very complex structures which would require complex inner workings. Even if I claimed life has always been complex the evidence supports that conclusion and there is no evidence for anything but the complexity of living forms in evidence.Then you don't have the evidence to back your claims that life has always been complex.
I would prefer that we be honest about it and say that we don't know one way or the other.
"Trusting" ANY theory requires MUCH faith in my opinion.
You or anyone else is entitled to disagree.
THE FIRST EVIDENCE of life on earth. We find evidence of bacteria which have not changed for millions and millions of years and then we find life in the Cambrian with complex eyes and even brains.How did you determine that those fossils were the first life on Earth? What complex structures did they have?
yes Brinny they are comparing the paint job of a monkey to the paint job of a human see only about 3- 5 % of each of that being / kind . and with all the finesse of a psychic with a Crystal ball proceed to by that paint job only tell us how it evolved from one to the other."Believing and trusting" in something.
Faith.
yes Brinny they are comparing the paint job of a monkey to the paint job of a human see only about 3- 5 % of each of that being / kind . and with all the finesse of a psychic with a Crystal ball proceed to by that paint job only tell us how it evolved from one to the other.
The first really really big lie in their theories about genetics is that the other part of the helix is the mothers contribution to that being . it isn't really .
it is only the mother' s father contribution to that beings type or race . so they are only analyzing two direct male lines Types at a total of maybe 6 % and of that type of that is only really controlled mostly by the fathers half of that helix which both sides total maybe 6%..
so the next question is where is mommy? yep she is the chevy truck..
or maybe the idea should be more like mannequin (but it seems with a dress that is billions of years old and related to a monkey)
they got all those goofy ideas from the paint job on a chassis or maybe a skirt and shirt on a mannequin .
and so those called scientists they think of themselves and their contributions to his creation as way way way more important than it seems God did .
Why don't you ask those who agree with certain theories, whether they rely on faith to believe them and or what the reasons are they believe in the theory.
That is, if you really want to know what they themselves think and not what you assume, they think.
When did evolution begin?
and not to mention that it all is based on theory......
theories are theories.....trusting in theories is ev'ry one's right if they so wish...
yet they are still "theories"
Theories are the highest anything gets in science. The theory that germs cause diseases is still a theory. Relativity is still a theory. Atoms are still a theory.
From this ?A "theory" is perfect, without error?
Theories are the highest anything gets in science. The theory that germs cause diseases is still a theory. Relativity is still a theory. Atoms are still a theory.
Do you know what a perfect theory would look like?
The bottom line is, whether you acknowledge it or not, you rely on theories being accurate to produce reliable results for you, everyday of your life.
Can't go higher than a theory in science.
Just keep banking on them producing reliable results, as they have for you everyday of your life.
Can't go higher than a theory in science.
Why not?
This is where educating one's self comes in handy and a person can only do that on their own.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20
Can't go higher than a theory in science.
A "theory" is perfect, without error?
not following..
what has that got to do with:
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?