Which Requires More Faith?

[WhiteMageGirl]

I'm not sure if you believe this statement, but there it is catagorically wrong; evolution has been observed.

No, no, no, she's talking about evolution. Which is a monkey giving birth to a fully functional human. If she were to be talking about the same evolution we are, she would have no doubt that new species do form, that new genetic functions arise by random mutation, and that natural selection is going on all around us. And that's it's readily being observed.

The thing is, creationists are spoon fed creationism from birth latched on with their religion. Then when the time is right, they are taught the "science" behind it and that Evolution is an Atheist lie and part of the Atheist religion. All before they ever see Evolution or Atheism. It's like the racist and racism. They are taught is from a young age. Then taught the "statistics"(fewer blacks going to college, mexican taking jobs, etc) behind it. All before solid contact with their target minority. And anything about their target minority that's positive is bluntly disregarded.

 

[Mickey1953]

Henry Morris, and anyone else who believes this, is wrong.

See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution or Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution - Evolution Has Never Been Observed

My post is shared with respect to what you have chosen to believe in. This is what I choose to believe. Someday we will know. I am encouraging you to view his site. You may find it of interest....
Sincerely,
Mickey

 

[dawiyd]

I think this is something that needs to be adressed.

Both Creation and Evolution are supported by scientific evidence. Neither, however, can be proven.

I shall help you, one of those is supported by scientific evidence, and it's not creationism.

So here's the question I pose to you: Which one requires more faith?

Creation.

The obvious answer would be Creation, right? Not really. Think of it. You can't prove one or the other, but one concerns an afterlife, and one doesn't.

Not really.

In other words, Creationists believe that after you die, your soul is put... Somewhere. Let's focus on the Christian belief for now, since this is a Christian webbsite. Christians believe that if you do not accept Christ then you will go to Hell, but if you do accept Christ then you will go to Heaven.

In that case I'm screwed whether I accept Creationism or not.

Atheists believe that it doesn't matter what you do on this Earth, when you die, you're always the same thing: Dead.

Cool.

Abviously an Atheist is not going to accept Christ, so acording to what he does not believe in, he will go to Hell.

Ok.

However, a Christian will accept Christ, but according to what he does not believe in, he will end up in the same situation the Atheist is in: Death.

Ok.

So, which one requires more faith?

Creationism.

 

[Tenka]

My post is shared with respect to what you have chosen to believe in.

With respect, one doesn't need to "choose to believe" evolution, it is just a fact we have observed and evolutionary theory is what we have developed to explain the facts we observe.
Exactly like gravity, we see it happen, we develop a theory to explain it.

 

[Mickey1953]

"Both Creation and Evolution are supported by scientific evidence. Neither, however, can be proven.
So here's the question I pose to you: Which one requires more faith? "That was the question asked.

quoting corvus_corax
"Lying for Jesus is a bad thing, isnt it?"

I do not know why this was said....Things of this life are sincerely
thought of and logically thought of; as best as we can. We each interpret logic and faith - we make a choice. I interpret to the best of my ability what I believe in - I am sure you do too......and so does this man, if you would take the time to view his site. Again - http://www.icr.org/article/3191/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
"All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Just as evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised at times, too."

Because a person believes in something; they have reason - as you. Only in time will we absolutely know, but not by mans' wisdom.

Sincerely,
And a Believer in Jesus
Mickey

 

[us38]

I do not know why this was said....Things of this life are sincerely
thought of and logically thought of; as best as we can. We each interpret logic and faith - we make a choice. I interpret to the best of my ability what I believe in - I am sure you do too......and so does this man, if you would take the time to view his site. Again - http://www.icr.org/article/3191/

The first sentance from this article:

The unobserved process of evolution and its bizarre history has been thoroughly entrenched in the minds of millions.

Emphasis added. To say evolution has not been observed is a blatant lie. It doesn't matter whether he believed it or not. It's a lie. Thus the comment "Lying for Jesus is a bad thing, isn't it?", because that's exactly what's going on here.

Because a person believes in something; they have reason - as you.

I don't believe evolution; I accept evolution, just as I accept general relativity. Please try to refrain from putting science on the level of belief.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[tocis]

Both Creation and Evolution are supported by scientific evidence.

Hic Rhodos. Hic salta.

 

[TheInstant]

So, which one requires more faith?

Well, I don't know. You've presented me with Pascal's Wager and then asked this faith question. What does faith have to do with the potential consequences of one's beliefs?

 

[truth above all else]

There appears to be much confusion about evolution,this doctrine is a belief employing science in order to make it appear half reasonable.It involves many spheres of thought and introduces its own distinctive philosophical and theological presuppositions and deductions.Of course it requires faith, to say that evolution has been observed without describing quantitatively what has been observed is meaningless to the truth seeker.

 

[RedAndy]

There appears to be much confusion about evolution,this doctrine is a belief employing science in order to make it appear half reasonable.It involves many spheres of thought and introduces its own distinctive philosophical and theological presuppositions and deductions.Of course it requires faith, to say that evolution has been observed without describing quantitatively what has been observed is meaningless to the truth seeker.

No.

Evolution is a process that happens, and has been observed on all levels (micro and macro). The theory of evolution is a way of explaining evolution, and is based upon scientific methodology, observation and evidence. There is no belief involved in either evolution or the theory of evolution - either you accept it, or you don't. And the overwhelming evidence for evolution means that not accepting it is about as reasonable as not accepting that things fall to the ground when dropped.

 

[TheInstant]

It involves many spheres of thought and introduces its own distinctive philosophical and theological presuppositions and deductions.

Such as?

 

[truth above all else]

No.

Evolution is a process that happens, and has been observed on all levels (micro and macro). The theory of evolution is a way of explaining evolution, and is based upon scientific methodology, observation and evidence. There is no belief involved in either evolution or the theory of evolution - either you accept it, or you don't. And the overwhelming evidence for evolution means that not accepting it is about as reasonable as not accepting that things fall to the ground when dropped.

this process you describe is assumed, you fail to distinguish variation from the grandiose concept of evolution, the small variations observable by science today cannot be extrapolated to the much bigger question of evolution.
The idea of evolution , when accepted and therefore believed requires tremendous faith to pass it on as true knowledge.The whole doctrine of evolutionism attempts to reduce everything to the stature of man taken as an end in himself,and aims at little more than satisfying the material side of his nature.

 

[truth above all else]

Such as?

they are innumerable as you well know

 

[FishFace]

My post is shared with respect to what you have chosen to believe in.

I don't choose what I believe. I let the evidence dictate it - to do otherwise is to be irrational. I honestly could not, even if I wanted to, believe in something that had no evidence to my knowledge.

This is what I choose to believe.

Likewise, there's no real "choice" about it. Evolution has evidence, Creation does not. A rational person always "chooses" the one with evidence.

Someday we will know.

We already do.

 

[FishFace]

There appears to be much confusion about evolution,

Not in the scientific community...

this doctrine is a belief employing science in order to make it appear half reasonable.

No, it is science employing evidence to make it obviously reasonable.

It involves many spheres of thought and introduces its own distinctive philosophical and theological presuppositions and deductions.

Nonsense. What philosophical and, even more ridiculously, theological, presuppositions does evolution require?

Of course it requires faith, to say that evolution has been observed without describing quantitatively what has been observed is meaningless to the truth seeker.

That's why the two links were provided which describe in detail exactly what has been observed. Perhaps you'd like to read them, maybe then you wouldn't misrepresent evolution as you have done.

 

[FishFace]

this process you describe is assumed, you fail to distinguish variation from the grandiose concept of evolution, the small variations observable by science today cannot be extrapolated to the much bigger question of evolution.

Why not. What mechanism exists, escaping the minds of all biologists, that prevents beneficial mutations from accruing over time?

The whole doctrine of evolutionism attempts to reduce everything to the stature of man taken as an end in himself,and aims at little more than satisfying the material side of his nature.

You do come out with some funny ideas. Evolution reduces man to the stature of everything not the other way around. Perhaps you have a problem with being the same basic kind of thing as a monkey, a sheep, a fish, etc, but just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.
Evolution doesn't make any claims about teleology, so I don't know what you're talking about ends for. Finally, evolution aims to satisfy the gap that would otherwise exist in our knowledge with respect to how species originated. Goodness knows why your yammering on about material sides of nature...

 

[FishFace]

they are innumerable as you well know

No. No-one seems to know except you, so why don't you come up with the goods?

 

[Aron-Ra]

There appears to be much confusion about evolution,this doctrine is a belief employing science in order to make it appear half reasonable.

"Half-reasonable"?!

When will you live up to your name? I have several times offered to prove evolution to your satisfaction, and you have fled that challenge every time. That means you are being un-reasonable.

It involves many spheres of thought and introduces its own distinctive philosophical and theological presuppositions and deductions.

Name one "presupposition", and one deduction.

Of course it requires faith,

Since I told you I could prove it to your satisfaction -whether you wanted to believe it or not- then obviously faith is neither required nor desired.

Try to imagine what a truly faithless philosophy would be. Explain to me what must be done to eliminate the influence of faith as much as possible -so that we will not be deceived by what we would rather believe. If you really think hard about that, you may begin to understand my perspective.

Of course any avenue of science, -including evolution- distrusts and refuses faith.

to say that evolution has been observed without describing quantitatively what has been observed is meaningless to the truth seeker.

How would you know what is meaningful to a truth seeker? Because I remember describing to you what was quantitively observed, and here we are now with you still saying the same things again. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think this is something that needs to be adressed.

Both Creation and Evolution are supported by scientific evidence.

No they're not. All available evidence supports evolution unanemously and exclusively. Creationism is supported only by con-men trying to sell nothing for something.

"Evolution is supported by the entire scientific community. 'Intelligent design' is supported by guys on-line to see Dukes of Hazzard." --Bill Mahr

Neither, however, can be proven.

Evolution is verifiable, easily-demonstrable and an inescapable fact of population genetics. Creationism is an unreasonable belief in the impossible which is adopted without reason and maintained against all reason.

So here's the question I pose to you: Which one requires more faith?

Faith denies the methods of science, and the methods of science deny faith.

 

[Dal M.]

So here's the question I pose to you: Which one requires more faith?

And whoever has the least faith wins, right?

Your premise is an affront to Christian teachings, your use of Pascal's Wager is an affront to my intelligence, and your use of Comic Sans is an affront to virtually everything else.