Skip to comments.
The Religion of Science (Evolution as Faith!)
CHJ ^
| Jan 14, 2006
| Nathan Tabor
Posted on 01/13/2006 8:24:51 PM PST by WatchYourself
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 601-603 next last
To: WatchYourself
"Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientists abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith."
Nonsense. Everything not proven is not "faith". Evidence (falling short of proof) separates it from faith.
61
posted on
01/13/2006 9:51:15 PM PST
by
elfman2
Comment #62 Removed by Moderator
To: Kuiper
I see a painting. There must have been a painter?
I see a building. There must have been a builder?
I see a car. There must have been a car maker?
I see creation. There must have been a _______.
Simple like that?
Why is this so hard for people? Some people think they are so wise with all their big fancy words.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
To: Rudder
Thanks for answering the question.
Comment #65 Removed by Moderator
To: Strategerist
That is not the claim. The forcing of interpretations of all observed phenomena relating to living organisms into a preconceived framework of naturalistic materialism is the unacceptable dictum of evolutionists.
66
posted on
01/13/2006 9:56:53 PM PST
by
Elsiejay
(Forever wondering)
Comment #67 Removed by Moderator
To: uptoolate
Wow, I like that Corinthians 1:27. Thank you for that.
Oops! The ape-men pictures were pulled.
I thought the circumcised one was interesting.
69
posted on
01/13/2006 9:59:39 PM PST
by
labette
(Continually discovering things I am completely ignorant about...since 1959)
To: uptoolate
Yeah, the 1st chapter of Romans pretty much sums up what is happening in the world today. It saddens me to think about all of the people who will be burning in hell for eternity for denying their creator.
70
posted on
01/13/2006 10:00:47 PM PST
by
treffner
To: Starve The Beast
life on Earth - can't be tinkered with, we have to settle for a strictly empirical approach. Let's teach kids what we've observed, nothing more... Things we have not observed are taught as an assumption.
The Apostle Paul defined faith as hope in things not seen.
Scientific assumptions are taken as a statement of faith.
Comment #72 Removed by Moderator
To: calex59
I agree, none of any of this can be proven. I don't know if they are true or false, but I don't think we will get to find out.
73
posted on
01/13/2006 10:06:01 PM PST
by
stuartcr
(Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
To: Kuiper
Incorrect, abiogenesis has a lot to do with evolution. Your mind says so. But science doesn't.
This is error number two (1. is untruthfulness): That is, by your own logic, creationists presume science to do what it doesn't purport to do. And when science fails to provide the answers you seek, you assume it has failed.
Science doesn't do the supernatural, by its own straightforward admission, and it declines abiogenesis as a part of evolution theory.
74
posted on
01/13/2006 10:07:06 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: uptoolate
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
75
posted on
01/13/2006 10:07:55 PM PST
by
treffner
To: Kuiper
You cannot disprove God, but you can prove You cannot disprove God, but you can prove God exists. If you can prove that the earth is young, all theories that try to reason away God are false since they requires billions of years of something out of nothing and order out of chaos, and thus, there must be a God. Understand, jec41? It's pretty simple. If you can prove that the earth is young, all theories that try to reason away God are false since they requires billions of years of something out of nothing and order out of chaos, and thus, there must be a God. Understand, jec41? It's pretty simple.
That's a grade school argument offering no logical proof. Once again The Six Ontological Proofs against the existence of God and The Six Ontological Proofs for the existence of God has already been logical reasoned by Reena Descartes. However by your own statements and if that is all the proof that you possess then god would be but a weak hypothesis and not even a theory. In other words you own opinion without proof. It is not philosophical argument with a logical foundation.
76
posted on
01/13/2006 10:09:09 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
Comment #77 Removed by Moderator
To: jec41
In other words you own opinion without proof.And, that, folks, is why science relies upon empirical data.
78
posted on
01/13/2006 10:13:21 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: stuartcr
Thanks, most people get really pissed when I voice my opinions on the subject of evo and religion.
79
posted on
01/13/2006 10:13:37 PM PST
by
calex59
Comment #80 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 601-603 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson