Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:58:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1304 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > James Brown wrote:
> > > > Hundreds of thousands of people have no knowledge of Brazil outside of
> > > > testimonials, but they believe in the existance of Brazil.
> > >
> > > Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - simply buy
> > > a plane ticket and watch the ground go by during the flight ;-)
> >
> > Satellite pictures of the whole earth. Tests verify that the satellite is
> > working accurately, and the pictures verify that which I am directly
> > familiar with and further verify the various claims it is there. I haven't
> > been there, but the evidence that I have access to is consistent with Brazil
> > being there. Experiments to find it can be reproduced with identical
> > results (sail on this compass heading, fly over here, look at these
> > coordinates, study the reflection patterns of these seismic waves, note the
> > infra-red readings from this instrument that we can verify is working
> > accurately, etc.). I don't have to actually go to Brazil to be reasonably
> > certain that it exists.
>
> But have you, personally, conducted these various experiments to prove the
> existance of Brazil, or are you accepting the testimonial evidence of those
> that have?
You are confusing an overwhelming body of evidence that reduces the
probablity of inaccuracy to virtually nothing with "faith". You are also
confusing reproducable results through a set experiment with no reproducable
results that have no set experiment. Tell me how to physically prove God,
for example, with reproducable results from a documented process and then it
won't be a matter of faith, but one of science.
Yup, seen seismic evidence (minored in Geology here in shakeyland). Yup,
seen satellite evidence directly from the satellite. Of course, not
everyone has ready access to this. Do I accept Brazil as a matter of faith?
No. As a matter of evidence that follows a consistent and supportable
pattern? Yes.
>
> If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take
> it on faith (or don't, I suppose...). It doesn't matter how large or small
> the body of evidence is, you are still CHOOSING to accept or not accept it.
> Any and all evidence that you do not directly observe is testimonial in
> nature. The difference in accepting Brazil on faith and accepting God on
> faith is a matter of degree, not of kind. (which is, I think, where this
> particular branch started)
>
> James
Again, find a reproducable test - simply trying to argue semantics is a
confusion of faith-based religion with evidence-based science.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Not in the least. You're taking people's word for it. "That's a picture of the earth from a satellite. Here's Brazil." Proof? Only if you *believe* the person. And that's faith-- at least in my book. Faith in that person's credibility, and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) We're fairly obviously working with different defintions of faith & evidence. What David (I think) & I are basically saying is that we take *everything* on faith. To function as individuals & as groups, we make certain assumptions, the two (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) But have you, personally, conducted these various experiments to prove the existance of Brazil, or are you accepting the testimonial evidence of those that have? If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take it on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
