Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2007-04-07 22:09:29
topal63
. . .
+533|7167
Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).
And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 22:10:49)

2007-04-07 22:09:50
jonsimon
Member
+224|6944

weamo8 wrote:

Okay, because you can not logically deduce the argument I am making, I will be clearer.

Is your post suggesting that all of the "knowledge" you have; everything you consider FACT has been personally experienced by you?

Have you ever learned anything from a book, a teacher, the internet, or a documentary that you consider FACT?  If you haven't personally experienced it, you accept it by "faith."
This is true, but it is a different faith. It is not faith in a concept, as is faith in god, it is faith that one could recreate the occurance and prove to himself that it is true.
2007-04-07 22:17:18
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7019|Portland, OR, USA

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

righthandfork, you are way in the hell too smart for this forum, and that includes me.

I am not completely sure this goes with what you are arguing, but I do have a question for the likes of Topal and Ken-jennings.

(1) Have you ever dug a fossil out of the ground?  (2)Have you personally dated any earthly matter?  Please tell me, how do you know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Because everyone tells you so, and you have read it in books?  No, because it is FACT (Always typing FACT in caps is getting annoying by the way Topal).  By definition, accepting something as true that you have never personally experienced is "faith."  I don't give a shit how great your sources are.

(Before some dim-whit flames me, I am not arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.)
1.) Yes I have... many actually.
2.) Yes I have... and if you would like to go to a University and do such yourself personally - please proceed thereto & enjoy. It is not that complicated a process/experiment to repeat.
Okay, because you can not logically deduce the argument I am making, I will be clearer.

Is your post suggesting that all of the "knowledge" you have; everything you consider FACT has been personally experienced by you?

Have you ever learned anything from a book, a teacher, the internet, or a documentary that you consider FACT?  If you haven't personally experienced it, you accept it by "faith."
fair enough, but then there are varying degrees of "faith" if thats what you want to call it.

For instance, when I read about chemistry in my text book, I know that people -- many people -- have run these experiments and the fact that a strong base and strong acid with neutralize into water and a salt is in truth a fact, or according to your definition, I have faith that it is a fact..

When I read the Bible, I'm reading a version that has been edited and translated many many times and its authenticity is, at this point, questionable to say the least.  It is talking about things that, in many cases, cannot be logically explained and is written from the point of view of the author months or years after the event.

See, science can be logically explained through experimentation and theories.

Religion can't, you can only believe things that The Bible tells you.  There is absolutely no way of knowing if any of it is actually true or did occur.
2007-04-07 22:19:15
topal63
. . .
+533|7167

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

righthandfork, you are way in the hell too smart for this forum, and that includes me.

I am not completely sure this goes with what you are arguing, but I do have a question for the likes of Topal and Ken-jennings.

(1) Have you ever dug a fossil out of the ground?  (2)Have you personally dated any earthly matter?  Please tell me, how do you know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Because everyone tells you so, and you have read it in books?  No, because it is FACT (Always typing FACT in caps is getting annoying by the way Topal).  By definition, accepting something as true that you have never personally experienced is "faith."  I don't give a shit how great your sources are.

(Before some dim-whit flames me, I am not arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.)
1.) Yes I have... many actually.
2.) Yes I have... and if you would like to go to a University and do such yourself personally - please proceed thereto & enjoy. It is not that complicated a process/experiment to repeat.

And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.
Okay, because you can not logically deduce the argument I am making, I will be clearer.

Is your post suggesting that all of the "knowledge" you have; everything you consider FACT has been personally experienced by you?

Have you ever learned anything from a book, a teacher, the internet, or a documentary that you consider FACT?  If you haven't personally experienced it, you accept it by "faith."
Of course I can accept 2nd hand knowledge - some but not all. So - NO(!) - I do not accept it based upon faith... I accept something based upon my ability to reason – not because of TRUST (blind acceptance of it: faith). If it is discordant with known reality or the data - I am firmly skeptical and an utter non-believer. I do not believe in 2nd knowledge of UFOs, there are many books, websites, and 2nd hand information out there and NONE of it is accepted by me based upon your ERRANT concept(s) of faith. But nonetheless UFOs are possible.

a.) There is skeptical critical thinking - utter disbelief.
b.) Then there is the suspension of that; the suspension of disbelief; trust/faith.

We should be (a) far more often than (b).

It is also obvious to me where you are going with this pointless circle - that one shade of meaning can be substituted with the other... it can't.

Suppose a man who has never heard of Evolution is told of it... and he accepts it with any investigation whatsoever; it is accpeted in blind-faith. He is utterly no different than a person who belives in a mythical tradition; as they merely have accpeted it without testing the veracity of it. There is no difference. So what!

Is your argument that ignorance is a good thing?
Or is that if one does not posess absolute knowing - that their generalizations about reality are invalid?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 22:36:30)

2007-04-07 22:19:16
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7050|132 and Bush

Experience is not necessary to accept fact. However a theory is an idea that does not have the proper credentials to rank high enough to be considered a fact. Those who are familiar with Practical Reason/Theoretical reason could probably explain this better. It's one thing to understand it, to explain it is a muderfudger.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-07 22:22:08)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-07 22:24:52
jonsimon
Member
+224|6944

Kmarion wrote:

Experience is not necessary to accept fact. However a theory is an idea that does not have the proper credentials to rank high enough to be considered a fact. Those who are familiar with Practical Reason/Theoretical reason could probably explain this better. It's one thing to understand it, to explain it is a muderfudger.
Some might argue you do not understand a thing until you can communicate it.
2007-04-07 22:26:37
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7050|132 and Bush

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Experience is not necessary to accept fact. However a theory is an idea that does not have the proper credentials to rank high enough to be considered a fact. Those who are familiar with Practical Reason/Theoretical reason could probably explain this better. It's one thing to understand it, to explain it is a muderfudger.
Some might argue you do not understand a thing until you can communicate it.
Don't confuse thought with explanation .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-07 22:26:41
weamo8
Member
+50|6891|USA

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).
And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.
John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
2007-04-07 22:29:46
jonsimon
Member
+224|6944

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).
And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.
John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
Wow, cool off the personal attacks. You're sounding pretty damn bigoted yourself.

righthandfork is trying to defend creationism as a school of thought, and proving that acceptance of anything requires trust does not support that cause.
2007-04-07 22:30:15
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7050|132 and Bush

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).
And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.
John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
Name calling is not necessary. In fact it is not even necessary to deny a god in order to accept evolution. There are many Christians who do this. Evolution does not preclude the existence of a God.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-07 22:31:39)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-07 22:38:29
weamo8
Member
+50|6891|USA

jonsimon wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).
John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
Wow, cool off the personal attacks. You're sounding pretty damn bigoted yourself.

righthandfork is trying to defend creationism as a school of thought, and proving that acceptance of anything requires trust does not support that cause.
He never once said anything about Creationism.  Did you read his disclaimer?

I have several good friends, including two brothers who are Atheists, and there was a time in my life that I would have considered myself an Atheist.  I am really only bigotted towards uber-extremists.  The name calling really wasn't necessary, and in fact, it is quite hypocritical.  My bad.

Last edited by weamo8 (2007-04-07 22:39:38)

2007-04-07 22:43:27
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7050|132 and Bush

Actually James had "eyewitness accounts".

The Paul/James debate.

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1336439518030057130&hl=en[/google]

What we know is the Paul version.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-07 22:44:34)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-07 22:43:37
weamo8
Member
+50|6891|USA

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).

John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
You should not make false statements, unlike you I have tested the veracity of that statement. That John is an eye-witness - that is a false claim... if you took half a minute to consider that the Gospels were in fact not eye-witness accounts; and learned the actual dates of the Gospels and other facts/etc... you would not make that false statement.

You don't even read what I post...
You are correct in that it is possible that John the Beloved never wrote anything, but you are still missing the point.  You are great at distraction falacies.
2007-04-07 22:47:13
topal63
. . .
+533|7167

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).
And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.
John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
You should not make false statements, unlike you I have tested the veracity of that statement. That John is an eye-witness - that is a false claim... if you took half a minute to consider that the Gospels were in fact not eye-witness accounts; and learned the actual dates of the Gospels and other facts/etc... you would not make that false statement.

Kmarion wrote:

Actually James had "eyewitness accounts".

The Paul/James debate.

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1336439518030057130&hl=en[/google]

What we know is the Paul version.
False, you have not really investigated that claim, at all Kmarion... and this is about to devolve into a Jesus never existed debate... that has a great deal of scholorship behind it. I am not interested in that.

weamo8, or righthabdfork you don't even read what I post...

Here is something,
"There is nothing wrong with this idea (a trancendent reality), but it has nothing to do with your own thread (or threads). If you suggest a mythological tradition (as all religious traditions are rooted in at least one or many) is equivalent to science; you are comparing things that simply should not be compared. And this example is a meta-physical extension of reality... this should not be compared to practical knowledge either. It's like comparing a painting or sculpture to an assembly diagram for a computer. Or like comparing a ritual-dance to a person walking to work."

And this:
"Also you continue to think that science & logic is being leveled at you like an insult. I am not doing so; nor do I feel that way. I am utterly open to the concept of transcendent reality or transcendent God. But I am almost certainly an atheist to all mythological traditions as being something you can accept at face value - literally."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-19 08:32:11)

2007-04-07 22:49:32
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7050|132 and Bush

I am speaking of popular belief (The Gospel) topal63. We are about to come full circle..lol

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-07 23:31:56)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-07 22:49:44
weamo8
Member
+50|6891|USA

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:


1.) Yes I have... many actually.
2.) Yes I have... and if you would like to go to a University and do such yourself personally - please proceed thereto & enjoy. It is not that complicated a process/experiment to repeat.

And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.
Okay, because you can not logically deduce the argument I am making, I will be clearer.

Is your post suggesting that all of the "knowledge" you have; everything you consider FACT has been personally experienced by you?

Have you ever learned anything from a book, a teacher, the internet, or a documentary that you consider FACT?  If you haven't personally experienced it, you accept it by "faith."
Of course I can accept 2nd hand knowledge - some but not all. So - NO(!) - I do not accept it based upon faith... I accept something based upon my ability to reason – not because of TRUST (blind acceptance of it: faith). If it is discordant with known reality or the data - I am firmly skeptical and an utter non-believer. I do not believe in 2nd knowledge of UFOs, there are many books, websites, and 2nd hand information out there and NONE of it is accepted by me based upon your ERRANT concept(s) of faith. But nonetheless UFOs are possible.

a.) There is skeptical critical thinking - utter disbelief.
b.) Then there is the suspension of that; the suspension of disbelief; trust/faith.

We should be (a) far more often than (b).

It is also obvious to me where you are going with this pointless circle - that one shade of meaning can be substituted with the other... it can't.

Suppose a man who has never heard of Evolution is told of it... and he accepts it with any investigation whatsoever; it is accpeted in blind-faith. He is utterly no different than a person who belives in a mythical tradition; as they merely have accpeted it without testing the veracity of it. There is no difference. So what!

Is your argument that ignorance is a good thing?
Or is that if one does not posess absolute knowing - that their generalizations about reality are invalid?
So what? So, nothing.  I did not make the OP, but it sounds to me like that is it.

If the logic of the OP is so simply correct, why are there 4 pages of arguments following it?
2007-04-07 22:53:26
topal63
. . .
+533|7167

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Okay, because you can not logically deduce the argument I am making, I will be clearer.

Is your post suggesting that all of the "knowledge" you have; everything you consider FACT has been personally experienced by you?

Have you ever learned anything from a book, a teacher, the internet, or a documentary that you consider FACT?  If you haven't personally experienced it, you accept it by "faith."
Of course I can accept 2nd hand knowledge - some but not all. So - NO(!) - I do not accept it based upon faith... I accept something based upon my ability to reason – not because of TRUST (blind acceptance of it: faith). If it is discordant with known reality or the data - I am firmly skeptical and an utter non-believer. I do not believe in 2nd knowledge of UFOs, there are many books, websites, and 2nd hand information out there and NONE of it is accepted by me based upon your ERRANT concept(s) of faith. But nonetheless UFOs are possible.

a.) There is skeptical critical thinking - utter disbelief.
b.) Then there is the suspension of that; the suspension of disbelief; trust/faith.

We should be (a) far more often than (b).

It is also obvious to me where you are going with this pointless circle - that one shade of meaning can be substituted with the other... it can't.

Suppose a man who has never heard of Evolution is told of it... and he accepts it with any investigation whatsoever; it is accpeted in blind-faith. He is utterly no different than a person who belives in a mythical tradition; as they merely have accpeted it without testing the veracity of it. There is no difference. So what!

Is your argument that ignorance is a good thing?
Or is that if one does not posess absolute knowing - that their generalizations about reality are invalid?
So what? So, nothing.  I did not make the OP, but it sounds to me like that is it.

If the logic of the OP is so simply correct, why are there 4 pages of arguments following it?
Is that your point that some people do understand evolution and others merely accept it sort of like faith. Is that the whole of this? That to me seems an utterly pointless thing.



Most people don't understand quantum mechanics - at all - or even think about it - at all. They don't accept or reject it on faith - they don't even think about it! What does that mean to you? To me it means some (actually MOST!) of the human knowledge-base falls outside of the human-mind in an external database. How does not even thinking about something alter the validity of that external database? It doesn't.

I will say it again...

weamo8, or righthabdfork you don't even read what I post...

Here is something,
"There is nothing wrong with this idea (a trancendent reality), but it has nothing to do with your own thread (or threads). If you suggest a mythological tradition (as all religious traditions are rooted in at least one or many) is equivalent to science; you are comparing things that simply should not be compared. And this example is a meta-physical extension of reality... this should not be compared to practical knowledge either. It's like comparing a painting or sculpture to an assembly diagram for a computer. Or like comparing a ritual-dance to a person walking to work."

And this:
"Also you continue to think that science & logic is being leveled at you like an insult. I am not doing so; nor do I feel that way. I am utterly open to the concept of transcendent reality or transcendent God. But I am almost certainly an atheist to all mythological traditions as being something you can accept at face value - literally."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-08 05:39:13)

2007-04-07 22:59:08
weamo8
Member
+50|6891|USA

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Everything you ask has been answered for sometime now... in one form or another (by me or another).

John saw the resurrected Christ, then wrote about his experiences.  I am just going off second hand knowledge.

There are varying degrees of faith, but it is still faith.

I believe that is the point righthandfork is trying to make.

It was there the whole time.  I guess you all just couldn't see it through your Atheo-extremist hatred.  You over-reactionary dip-shits are starting to scare me.
You should not make false statements, unlike you I have tested the veracity of that statement. That John is an eye-witness - that is a false claim... if you took half a minute to consider that the Gospels were in fact not eye-witness accounts; and learned the actual dates of the Gospels and other facts/etc... you would not make that false statement.

Kmarion wrote:

Actually James had "eyewitness accounts".

The Paul/James debate.

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1336439518030057130&hl=en[/google]

What we know is the Paul version.
False, you have not really investigated that claim, at all Kmarion... and this is about to devolve into a Jesus never existed debate... that has a great deal of scholorship behind it. I am not intereste in that.

weamo8, or righthabdfork you don't even read what I post...

Here is something,
"There is nothing wrong with this idea (a trancendent reality), but it has nothing to do with your own thread (or threads). If you suggest a mythological tradition (as all religious traditions are rooted in at least one or many) is equivalent to science; you are comparing things that simply should no be compared. And this example is a meta-physical extension of reality... this should not be compared to practical knowledge either. It's like comparing a painting or sculpture to an assembly diagram for a computer. Or like compari
ng a dance to a person walking to work."

And this:
"Also you continue to think that science & logic is being leveled at you like an insult. I am not doing so; nor do I feel that way. I am utterly open to the concept of transcendent reality or transcendent God. But I am almost certainly an atheist to all mythological traditions as being something you can accept at face value - literally."
It seems to me that different people just interpret different information in different ways.

I, have seen enough evidence of God to have faith in him.  You have not seen that evidence, or intrepret evidence otherwise.  That is fine.  I can respect that.

(I understand that this is completely off topic.  This is just a note to Topal.  I dont mean to derail the thread.)
2007-04-07 23:02:26
EVieira
Member
+105|6927|Lutenblaag, Molvania

weamo8 wrote:

Have you ever learned anything from a book, a teacher, the internet, or a documentary that you consider FACT?  If you haven't personally experienced it, you accept it by "faith."
Thats stupid. I don't need to personally repeat all the scientific experiments of which all of the things I studied in school and university were derived, deduced or discovered from. They have been proven and reprooven already, hence there's need to have faith in science.

You got one thing right in your previous posts though, righthankfork is allot smarter than you.

Edited for spelling

Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-07 23:07:38)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-07 23:04:25
topal63
. . .
+533|7167

weamo8 wrote:

It seems to me that different people just interpret different information in different ways.
Here is another interpretation (I already posted in this thread):
"This is a personal problem, or a theological problem, or an inertia problem for institutions & traditions, that requires adaption to change. The transcendent worldview is not-invalid... but it is up to those practitioners of a "faith", or you, to figure out how to adapt your worldview to the increases in understanding gained by the scientific method. It is a boon; a gift."

If God created everthing then the sceintific method is tied to the same creation; in my view; if there is a God; the gift of the method is something pointless to rail against.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 23:15:23)

2007-04-07 23:11:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS
Okay, my logic isn't quite up to that stage yet, but I have ask something:

What's the difference between faith and trust? As far as I can tell they mean exactly the same thing (almost - the same way 'to think' and 'to believe' almost mean the same thing)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-04-07 23:12:09
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6991|Texas - Bigger than France
Someone mentioned gravity, which is a good example of scientific faith.  We all know it exists, but no one can prove WHY it exists.  It sort of parallels the creationism/evolution debate in that each theory is termed as mutually exclusive because both sides have argued gaps exist .  Applying this logic to gravity...gravity doesn't exist because it can't be fully explained. 

I believe that its possible evolution and creationism can co-exist.  But between you and me, the way some of those who push one side of the argument makes it harder for me to take them seriously.
2007-04-07 23:17:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS
but no one can prove WHY it exists.
Einstein did.

But how can evolution and creationism co-exist? Enlighten me.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-04-07 23:20:34
topal63
. . .
+533|7167

Spark wrote:

Okay, my logic isn't quite up to that stage yet, but I have ask something:

What's the difference between faith and trust? As far as I can tell they mean exactly the same thing (almost - the same way 'to think' and 'to believe' almost mean the same thing)
Suppose you only had one word: "believe." This wouldn't change anything.

The use of the word colors the meaning as to alter it. It should be obvious you can freely interchange them and there is little difference intrinsically out of context. In context as used there is a huge difference.

Also consider the pointlessness of this thread, as it all boils down to this:

1.) Some people believe in evolution (an actually haven't a clue, in fact they might even have it wrong, they might truly believe that inter-specie breeding will produce a new species of animal, I have met people who held this misconception).

2.) There are many experts who believe in evolution, they have documented it happening, have first hand experience documenting newly evolved specie of bacteria, have preformed the detailed analysis, etc... they know and often state with certainty that it is a FACT (the bacteria thingy; as it is), and has been confirmed as a Theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

3.) There are other people (the majority) - who fall somewhere between #1 & #2.

4.) There are others who reject it based upon faith, irregardless of #2 existence.

To me (#4) is a rejection of our human-accumulated knowledge-base, that was produced in an environment of integrity; to advance our collective practical knowledge of the natural world.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-08 05:41:25)

2007-04-07 23:29:23
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS
they might truly believe that inter-specie breeding will produce a new species of animal
I'm trying to work out whether this would've been a good thing or a bad thing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard