Faith vs Knowledge

Faith vs Knowledge

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
25 Dec 16

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Are you saying evolution is an assumption?

If so, are you interested in buying London Bridge?
See what I mean?

You are such a true believer you assume your assumptions must be true. No need for actual observation or repreatability, just faith.

The Ghost Chamber

Joined
14 Mar 15
Moves
28760
25 Dec 16

Originally posted by Eladar
See what I mean?

You are such a true believer you assume your assumptions must be true. No need for actual observation or repreatability, just faith.
Faith is your bag dude. I'm more into verifiable evidence. Evolution has plenty of that, which you can discover for yourself with a little light reading.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
25 Dec 16
1 edit

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Faith is your bag dude. I'm more into verifiable evidence. Evolution has plenty of that, which you can discover for yourself with a little light reading.
I am going with the op with real science. Real science is the kind of science you can see and repeat, not just pretend you've seen.

looking for loot

western colorado

Joined
05 Feb 11
Moves
9664
25 Dec 16

Originally posted by 667joe
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 o ...[text shortened]... faith not be questioned. This is an anti knowledge position. Science is always questioning itself.
You got some faith in science going on. I tease you, or do I. Hope you find the value in faith even as you realize the value in science.

Maryland

Joined
10 Jun 05
Moves
156740
26 Dec 16

The pilots who crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were operating on very strongly believed faith. Scientists have open minds. Believers have closed minds!

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by 667joe
The pilots who crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were operating on very strongly believed faith. Scientists have open minds. Believers have closed minds!
Lol, all Christians are really Islamic Terrorists!

What a nut job.

Maryland

Joined
10 Jun 05
Moves
156740
26 Dec 16

I think the victims in Waco and Jonestown were Christians and not trained in science. Also, most of the killers in Nazi concentration camps were Protestants and Catholics.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by 667joe
I think the victims in Waco and Jonestown were Christians and not trained in science. Also, most of the killers in Nazi concentration camps were Protestants and Catholics.
Way to change the topic.

Typical, get called on an idiotic statement, change the topic.

Haters gotta hate.

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
36741
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I never really followed the Debates Forum. Were you as nonsensical in that forum as well?

Originally posted by Eladar
The original post in this thread is in the debate forum?
Clearly, the answer is yes. Yes, he was/is.

He's a dyed-in-the-wool "conservatard". It's what they do.

Don't ask me how he got over here or why he's now polluting this forum with his nonsense.

Garbage disposal

Garbage dump

Joined
20 Apr 16
Moves
2040
26 Dec 16
1 edit

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A chap once told me that dinosaurs didn't exist, and that God had put the bones in rocks to confuse mankind.

The two of you would have got along splendidly.
Splendid dodge to my question there.

By the way have you ever heard of 'behemoth' in the Bible? I don't hold the same view that chap of yours.

The Ghost Chamber

Joined
14 Mar 15
Moves
28760
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by Eladar
I am going with the op with real science. Real science is the kind of science you can see and repeat, not just pretend you've seen.
Evolution occurs over a considerable time period. To dismiss it because you can't set up a camera and observe it in operation is plain ridiculous and in the same ball park as the chap who insists the world is flat because he can't see the curvature with his own eyes.

Is creation something you can repeat for us, here and now?

The Ghost Chamber

Joined
14 Mar 15
Moves
28760
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Splendid dodge to my question there.

By the way have you ever heard of 'behemoth' in the Bible? I don't hold the same view that chap of yours.
Yes, splendid indeed.

looking for loot

western colorado

Joined
05 Feb 11
Moves
9664
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by 667joe
The pilots who crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were operating on very strongly believed faith. Scientists have open minds. Believers have closed minds!
Scientists are human and carry all the baggage humans do. Science is very conservative and new ideas face fierce struggle.

Garbage disposal

Garbage dump

Joined
20 Apr 16
Moves
2040
26 Dec 16
2 edits

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Faith is your bag dude. I'm more into verifiable evidence. Evolution has plenty of that, which you can discover for yourself with a little light reading.
For 'evolution' to occur you need pre-existing creatures with a pre-existing DNA code. Well at least according to the 'verifiable evidence' that you supposedly have. So that does not exclude the possibility of creation happening first.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
26 Dec 16

Originally posted by Eladar
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?
You can find much of the evidence in favour of the theory of evolution summarized for the layman here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution