Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:59:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1550 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or
> > something, especially without logical proof
>
> Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as
> 'proof', not 'logical proof')
>
> > End paste. Note 1, 2 and 3. So no, I don't agree with you definition at
> > all unless you want to qualify that yours is a faith system without logical
> > proof and mine is a faith system with logical proof.
>
> Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof?
We've been over the scientific process already.
> And second, prove logically
> that all perceptions of physical events are more valid than all perceptions
> of metaphysical events.
I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith. We've been
over this before. Time is a logical construct that we use, but in fact may
be simply an illusion to our limited perceptions. But for the purposes of
our senses it follows a logical pattern.
> Note, that's ALL perceptions by EVERYONE, not just
> for you, since (I'm assuming) that you're attempting to make a more
> universal conclusion about the nature of science vs. religion. If you just
> logically prove that they're more valid for YOU, then you've made no
> headway, and I'm curious to see what your point is.
Compare perceptions. See what is consistent and follows a logical process.
You keep making the assumption that somehow, somewhere along the chain,
scientists stop applying the logical process (which they do on occasions,
but then they made a mistake in doing so, and then we are not talking about
the scientific process).
>
> > This is the same as
> > saying NO, they are NOT equivalent. The whole thing you are trying to imply
> > is that ultimately evolution is based on faith and not logical proof and
> > therefore no different than faith in God, or creationism.
>
> Not really, but kinda. The implication is that all things are based on faith
> in our senses, and faith in our ability to correctly interpret our senses.
I've addressed this continuously and you keep ignoring what I have said and
restating the exact same thing over and over. You are simply playing a
semantic game with the word "faith".
> And, the conclusion is that in the theoretical world, evolution is no better
> than creationism.
Science=faith. Religion=faith. Therefore science=religion. And you just
denied that that's what you were saying in another message. A specious
conclusion based on two different applications of the word "faith" and
hoping since the word is the same, no one notices the word as applied isn't
the same.
> But that's a clarification, because there are those who
> would say that evolutionary theory is ALWAYS better than creationism, and I
> disagree. However, I WILL say that I personally believe that evolutionary
> theory IS a better theory for all humans, without really being able to back
> that up other than with personal experiences, which doesn't disprove the
> possibility for activity outside of those experiences.
>
> > To clear things
> > up in the future, lets refer to that which doesn't depend on logical proof
> > and that which does and avoid the word faith instead of playing this
> > semantic game.
>
> Always best to get that semantic mess out of the way-- But it's too bad we
> assume so much about what the other person might interpret via our words...
>
> DaveE
And sure enough, you went right back to the semantic game. Sigh.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith-- in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been consistant in the past. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as 'proof', not 'logical proof') (...) Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof? And second, prove logically that all perceptions of physical events are more valid (...) (23 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
