Posted on 07/22/2013 8:45:30 AM PDT by kimtom
We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.
“Blind Faith”—Many Have It
What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.
Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the ......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
“Exactly, which is why I do not give evolution the benefit of the doubt. It exists to prove God doesn’t exist.”
Haven’t you heard of the primordial soup?
It’s primordial, and it’s soup !!!
Case closed.
/s
Truly, even scientists do not finish their sentences for all they can say is that the universe is 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates but they leave that last part out.
Likewise, when considering inflationary theory and relativity as Dr. Schroeder explains, the universe is a week old from the inception space/time coordinates.
I was particularly taken by the notion that when matter appears, ‘time takes hold’. Then the new counting when Adam is made, well that was a smashing idea! Got me really going for ‘That’s In The Bible?’ don’tchaknow.
Age of the Universe, by Gerald Shroeder
Excellent article, well written and well worth the time to read and understand.
Thanks.
In summary: according to Einstein, to one traveling at or near the speed of light, billions of stationary years can go by in a single 24-hour day.
On kimtom's larger subject of faith versus reason -- we all have "faith" that when we flip the switch, a light will come on, and very few of us understand details of science, engineering, manufacturing and service required to make that happen.
But if, as happens occasionally, the light fails to come on, then our "faith" gives way to reason -- is it just a light bulb, or something in the switch, or maybe a local power outage?
So reasoning takes over when faith proves inadequate.
Well, then, in what sense is the Bible inadequate, that we should need to reason our way around or out of it?
I'd say, in no sense, but let's play along...
It's said that our interpretations of scripture don't always mesh well with scientific understandings.
For example, the Bible says G*d created the Universe plus life on earth, and G*d's Son brings us salvation and life.
By supposedly stark contrast, science tells us that Something created the Universe with life on earth, and Something's principles can bring us longer happier life.
So how is the Something of science different from the Bible's Deity?
Well first, science by it's own choice strips way from Something all values such as "plan", "purpose", "design", "objective", "love" and such moral values as would support those.
Science instead suggests the Universe is random, accidental, un-directed, arbitrary and without values or moral content.
Why does science say such things?
Because that's the nature of science.
Does science prevent us from seeing that the Universe had not only a moment of creation, but also a Creator?
Not in the least, especially when you consider the thin-to-nonexistent evidence supporting their speculations about possible "multiverses" and "time before creation".
Indeed, if we were to give such speculations any credence at all, might they just as easily be abodes for certain hosts mentioned in scripture?
My point is this: as long as fundamentals don't change, why sweat the small stuff?
True fundamentals never change.
I wonder how many Christians would cringe at the notion that God is still creating, using the Salvation process through The Grace of God in Christ to bring into being new creations? ... That's in the Bible, if one looks.
Of course, no evolution theory says dogs turned into horses, and I'm certain you know that, but possibly enjoy a little hyperbole?
In fact, much of this type argument is just a word definition game -- what exactly is a "transitional form"?
Well, first of all, isn't every individual "transitional" between our ancestors and our progeny?
And if small biological changes help us to adapt better, aren't we more likely to survive and reproduce?
And doesn't DNA analysis allow us to track these generation-by-generation changes back into the depths of time?
Second, consider the total number of known species -- 1.5 million named, with another 5 million estimated as yet to be cataloged.
Of those, over 5,000 are mammals.
But how many mammal fossils do we have from, say, 5 million years ago?
A few dozen, a couple of hundred?
One estimate is that we have fossils of fewer than 1% of all species which ever lived.
Simply put: for every "transitional form" fossil we do have, 99 others are missing.
Third, we actually do have many transitional fossils, and none more complete than those of pre-human creatures, of which I've posted this photo now several times:
•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Doubtless you're correct, but I never criticize Christians for details of their beliefs, on the general principle that as long as they get the basics right, there's no good reason for me to sweat the small stuff.
That's why we have ministers and priests, to deal with both the basics and minute details... ;-)
the only evidence that any of those suppposed human-ape links exists in the imagination of the evolutionist
Well... it's called a scientific theory, meaning a hypothesis that's been confirmed frequently and strongly -- confirmed by predictions and falsifiable tests.
In the cases of pre-human creatures evidence exists in the form of DNA similarities of modern mankind to Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Floresiens ("Hobbits"), but also the similarity of human and more distant creatures like Chimpanses.
Evolution theory explains these all as descendants of common ancestors.
No other scientific hypothesis has been offered.
And that's about as close to the Truth as a scientific theory can ever get -- short of actual observations which make it not theory, but fact.
Yes, there are many confirmed observations (facts) associated with evolution, but the theory itself cannot be observed, and so remains a theory.
Of course, you may call it whatever you wish -- be that "scientific imagination" or "fantasy" -- it remains what it is: a theory which powerfully explains scientifically what we see in the world.
you can re-word it as you like
but the imagination of an evolutionist is just that, but that does not mean it is science
nor does it change the fact that the evolutionist doesn’t accept that imagination on blind faith
because there is zero evidence, only a guess, that evolution is accurate, therefore, it is blind faith
you left out how chlorophyll is similar to human blood
but if you realized that, you would have to change your ape to man theory to a plant to man theory...
It appears that you wish to turn this into a debate over definitions of words -- words like "science" -- what is, exactly, and what is not "science"?
In such a debate, on your side you would have all the power and authority of your own personal opinions ("it ain't science"), and opposing you about 2,500 years of western philosophical thought, going all the way back to ancient Greeks like Plato and Aristotle.
In traditional Western thought, "science" is that branch of philosophy concerned only with natural causes for natural processes.
Science, by definition of the word "science" does not look for G*d in any natural process, and indeed, if G*d is the only reasonable answer, then science will throw up its hands and say, "we don't know what it is".
Of course, many scientists can see G*d just as well as anyone else, but G*d is in the province of other branches of philosophy, such as theology, metaphysics or ontology.
Evolution hypotheses and theories (whether right or wrong) meet traditional definitions of "science" as "natural explanations for natural processes".
Intelligent Design (whether right or wrong) is a theological concept that falls outside the bounds of science.
That's why, short of empirical evidence showing G*d (or Whomever) at work building new species, no real scientist will accept ID as genuinely scientific.
RaceBannon: "...there is zero evidence, only a guess, that evolution is accurate, therefore, it is blind faith"
No, sorry, but there are literal mountains of evidence confirming Evolution's hypotheses, making them scientific theories.
Of course, if you wish to turn a blind eye and ignore the evidence, that's your choice.
But evidence is there, for anyone to see.
In fact, evidence from some of the oldest rocks ever found, the Greenstone belt of the Isua complex of the western Greenland Region, show signs of primitive life nearly 4 billion years ago.
This life was too primitive to be classified as either plant or animal.
Evidence of early plant-like bacteria are not found in rocks until 3 billion years ago.
The first clearly identified multi-celled animals do not appear in fossil records until the "Cambrian Explosion" beginning circa 580 million years ago.
So, did animals evolve from plants?
No, since in those days many organisms had some plant-like features and some animal-like features, such that distinctions are difficult to make.
Over time some plant-like critters became plants, some animal-like beasts became animals, and some never did chose sides -- i.e., the fungus among us. ;-)
Because many of life's basic functions are the same in all creatures, there are "homologous genes" amongst virtually all species.
For example, humans and mustard weed share 17% of our genes.
there from your own mouth
humans are related to plants
or are plants related to humans??
and you claim that CREATIONISM is on blind faith?
Go hug a tree, he’s your cousin, and you just said so!
Now, now, FRiend, you'll need a certain level of reading comprehension if you wish to debate these matters:
BJK: "So, did animals evolve from plants?
No, since in those days many organisms had some plant-like features and some animal-like features, such that distinctions are difficult to make."
BJK: "humans and mustard weed share 17% of our genes."
So the word "related" is your term for it.
I'd say the evidence suggests that all life may have evolved from common ancestors some billions of years ago.
I have more than enough to know how to refute evolution, after all, I am the Freeper who started these threads over 10 years ago, and just gave up for a while
so, no, I don’t need anymore reading comprehension, all I need to do is let you see the error of your ways
And no, I dont need to quote exact science all the time, simple logic will do.
Evolutionists believe they are related to oak trees, water lilies, and frog paddocks, along with salamanders and condors.
And you call it science.
Unbelievable.
interestingly, these are not to scale.
similarities of structure does not a relative ,make!!!!
to some, WWII aircraft look the same, But not to a historian. They are all prop driven, single engine fighters(say)but each followed a different design solution to the SAME problem (flight).
Also, this does not prove your supposition, ie; transition.
To me (as shown) I see large differences until “J”.
Also according to some studies I have read (seen) some of the fragments when assembled are not reconstructed correctly.
This is due to bias on the part of evolutionary thinking.
thanks
.Why does science say such things?.”
Isn’t this only “a method”
(not an explanation)
we interpret the data collected.
(or purposely mis-interpret...whatever the case...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.