Evolution (Pls read post â??1â?� b4 posting)

[Pass That Shit]

I was agreeing with Jake's physics teacher

[harris7]

I sort of agree but i would define faith in science as faith in observation. This applies to everything, philosophy and religion. So I donâ??t really think science should be singled out.

And well it has proven a very effective and useful thing to have "faith" in. So i think it is incorrect to say that someone has faith in it.
Since faith is a â??belief that is not based on proofâ?�. Science effectively gets us information, you could say this is itâ??s purpose.
Yes science has basic flaws.
1) it is based on the Principle of the uniformity of nature. Which is probably the biggest theoretical flaw
2) observation may be false. This is more of a philosophical exercise than anything.
3)probably others too

Regardless of these flaws science works, this is obvious no one can deny the amazing pace science progresses at and what it creates. We know it works, so what is there to have faith inâ?¦? I guess we also have faith in our knowledge of these advances, faith in our memory. Non of these things are specific to science


Oh and:

â??â?�And these proteins...bond together...and create a life form...that's not made of protein.â?�â?�
Life is largely made of proteins

[Pass That Shit]

Since faith is a â??belief that is not based on proofâ?�.

According to the scriptures, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. So it's impossible to have faith without proof. I'm not sure where your definition comes from but faith is a scriptural word and any definition of this word is probably an interpretation of the meaning in the bible. Another words, faith is a person. So if you have faith, you have substance and proof. Obviously my views are always from the bible.

[harris7]

well i looked in the dictionary
this is the most blunt definition

Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

this is the Christian application. Oddly different than yours

this is what I believe faith means.

[Polymirize]

hey blue bear, I'd hate to say you're completely full of shit without justifiable cause, but is it possible that you'd know of another source, perhaps more in line with a scientific journal, that backs up these claims that neanderthals have been disproven. Just to start with. Do you think there might be a conflict of interest in finding these fun "facts" on a religiously based website?

Really? You found the website within ten minutes, hell why wouldn't I want to check that out? What a great qualifier.

[harris7]

Yes I agree with plymirize. If all of these things were disproven than whomever it was that challenged the US government on the topic of teaching creationism in school would have actually had something to say in their defense.

I think that information is posted on some Christian website. So people will read it, it reinforces their believes. and they feel no need to verify the information.

It follows a nice little psychological "formula:

A person has a belief
A person is confronted with a piece of information

If this information is consistent with the belief then, information is accepted at truth. Little thought is given to it

If the information is inconsistent with the belief then the person must choose.
1) Modify the belief so it accommodates the new information.
2) Disregard the new information

(the second option, if it’s inconsistent, is a highly critical approach.)
People are very critical and place less faith in information that contradicts their belief. And they aren’t very critical at all about information that confirms there belief.
This is called confirmation Bias

Everyone is subject to this. I believe this is one main factor in why people can believe so strongly in something like creationism and not believe in evolution.

Someone makes a website writes a bunch of lies on it that disprove evolution. And oh, you stumble onto it and wow your beliefs are reinforced because of lies.

A few days later you forget what you read but the beliefs prevail, stronger now.

[harris7]

Well I finally found the website in that long post and I’ve only read the first paragraph and it’s already wrong

“”Just as Creationism is a philosophy (i.e. religion), so also is Evolutionism. Neither one is observable or repeatable, so both theories are outside the domain of what is strictly called science, and are in the domain of philosophy. To the questions, "Were you there when it happened?" or "Can you repeat (verify) it in a lab?" we must answer "no". Where we end up on the Creation/Evolution question will involve faith.”

They seem to think evolution cannot be looked at by science. False. They justify this because it wasn’t witnessed and cannot be reproduced in a lab.

They are clearly speaking to people who have only taken highschool science. And yes these people probably think this is what constitutes science.
And it’s wrong. I have gone over this several times

By this logic science couldn’t study what’s inside the earth. But they can. It’s call scientific inference.

I will not read any further as this website has already shown it’s inaccuracies and biases. And as I said b4 if this agreed with my beliefs I probably wouldn’t have been so critical and accepted it. So I don’t blame you

And just so you know. If a “scientific” claim doesn’t appear in a peer reviewed journal then it’s probably bullshit.

[BlueBear]

Hmm very interesting. So if it comes from a religious based sight, which I didn't even consider it must be full of BS? That is something considering many notable authors, scientist and mechanical engineers are believers in some kind of faith rather than none, and a large portion of intelligent scholars are Christians, but don't go to the bible to disprove evolution I guess the fact that they are Christian negates their findings? That is truly critical thinking at its finest. Well, I will be back, but more or less it seems that for most responding they already have the answers they want and every thing else falls into the line of throwing the babies out with the bath water.
With the quotes and such I did post it is find to say it is just not true because such and such, but I don't think that the point of proof lies on me any more, the statements were clear enough for anyone to confirm them or unconfirmed them with about 15 minutes of time using the web and looking up cross references on un religious sights, so a quick sentence or two about what you feel doesn't really do anything for the argument IMO.
Adieu

[BlueBear]

"A person has a belief
A person is confronted with a piece of information

If this information is consistent with the belief then, information is accepted at truth. Little thought is given to it

If the information is inconsistent with the belief then the person must choose.
1) Modify the belief so it accommodates the new information.
2) Disregard the new information

(the second option, if it’s inconsistent, is a highly critical approach.)
People are very critical and place less faith in information that contradicts their belief. And they aren’t very critical at all about information that
confirms there belief.
This is called confirmation Bias"
After What I posted and read the responses I think your more right than ever about what you said above, especially about it applying to everybody. . Example "These facts do not chime in with what I belief so I will not attempt to put any effort to analytically research them I will declare them false according to the superior belief I have already. " It is a little funny to me, since it is posted on a religious sight it is a bunch of lies by Nobel Pries winners and scientist trying to promote their dumb religion, or something to that thought process. I doubt that they even considered that their words were going to be posted there, I am sure that they have bigger and better things to do than contribute creative false statements to a little web sight. But since that is what the conspiracy theory sounds like I guess that all of the info is un true and disqualifies the facts. That is truly enlightened and extremely critical thinking. But a Darwin theory can be read and admired and built upon as a personal belief without much qualm from other listeners?
Adieu

[harris7]

I admit I did not read the entire article. I read the beginning. Which i commented on. it is false. I looked through and at the end and found no formal Citations. IF these are noble prize winners then they would understand the importance of citation. And I cannot properly verify there information without them.


Without citation there is no reason to think they didn't make all this shit up.

and yes of course i am under the influence of this bias. I go to the website thinking it will be wrong and look to confirm this. And IT wasn't very hard.

It is an intelligently written essay. But not as an argument to battle atheists but to confirm believers.

The entire essay is based on a false premise that evolution is removed from science!!!!

it is very tactful, the writer looks to remove evolution from science. Show that it is based in faith, thus equating it to religious faith.
Very smart

Look to what i said before, it still stands.

I will reiterate
First line â??just as creationism is a philosophy, so is evolutionism.â?� Wrong
Second line â??Neither one is observable or repeatableâ?� The writer makes these two practices the definition of science. It is not

Do I need to go any further? I donâ??t need to read any further, as the first two lines are wrong and are intended to mislead, I can assume an article based on these two premises will also be wrong and misleading.

and no, i do not think that it is wrong because it is on a religious website. but obviously I will suspect it is biased.

do you understand the importance of the peer review process.
it means someone who is much better informed and educated than us on this specific topic. reads the article and if it has merit it will be published. No articles have been published for intelligent design. This is why it is not allowed in the curriculum of american schools.

As well testimonials are not proof and shouldnâ??t be regarded as evidence for anything. Even if this testimony comes from a well regarded source. If this person is not representing the views of the majority of people in the field they are misleading you. I am not saying this is what they are doing but I will not trust this article because it c
but wrong.