Knowledge means knowing facts that are provable and reproducible. Faith means you hope something is true but you can't prove it because if you could, it would be knowledge and faith would not be required. Why should I believe anything on faith alone? One religious faith is just as likely to be true as any other, and since none of them has been proven, all of them are likely to be false. Also, I notice that many people of faith get touchy if their faith is questioned, and would rather their faith not be questioned. This is an anti knowledge position. Science is always questioning itself.
Originally posted by 667joeI agree with your definition of knowable.
Knowledge means knowing facts that are provable and reproducible. Faith means you hope something is true but you can't prove it because if you could, it would be knowledge and faith would not be required. Why should I believe anything on faith alone? One religious faith is just as likely to be true as any other, and since none of them has been proven, al ...[text shortened]... th not be questioned. This is an anti knowledge position. Science is always questioning itself.
Perhaps you can reproduce evolution for me. I've never actually seen it done. Can you please evolve a new species for me?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
Originally posted by EladarYou get evolution takes a while to happen, right?
I agree with your definition of knowable.
Perhaps you can reproduce evolution for me. I've never actually seen it done. Can you please evolve a new species for me?
Fortunately substantial evidence exists that catalogues evolution at work. Can you say the same for creation?
In your own time...
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeBut how do you know for sure that the 'transitional fossils' weren't originally created to be exactly the way that they were found and that they aren't in fact evidence of 'evolution'?
You get evolution takes a while to happen, right?
Fortunately substantial evidence exists that catalogues evolution at work. Can you say the same for creation?
In your own time...
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI guess you can't hold to evolution and knowledge at the same time according to the op.
You get evolution takes a while to happen, right?
Fortunately substantial evidence exists that catalogues evolution at work. Can you say the same for creation?
In your own time...
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA chap once told me that dinosaurs didn't exist, and that God had put the bones in rocks to confuse mankind.
But how do you know for sure that the 'transitional fossils' weren't originally created to be exactly the way that they were found and that they aren't in fact evidence of 'evolution'?
The two of you would have got along splendidly.
Charles Darwin pretty much proved evolution with his scientific observations especially when the HMS Beagle visited the isolated Galapagos Islands. If god created immutable humans starting with Adam and Eve, how did we end up with Negros, Caucasians, and Orientals? If these 3 groups staid isolated long enough, features would continue to evolve to the point that they would become 3 different species.
Originally posted by 667joeHe proved it based on repeatable observation?
Charles Darwin pretty much proved evolution with his scientific observations especially when the HMS Beagle visited the isolated Galapagos Islands. If god created immutable humans starting with Adam and Eve, how did we end up with Negros, Caucasians, and Orientals? If these 3 groups staid isolated long enough, features would continue to evolve to the point that they would become 3 different species.
Are you going to hold to your original statement or are you a hypocrites?