Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[popper]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Why are you asking me?! The outline popper posted from Wikipedia shows that memetics is a much deeper 'theory' than what you posted as your understanding of it.

I have no intention of defending memetics, I simply observe that based on the Wikipedia entry, there seems to be a lot more to it than you apparently thought.

I'm not certain how these questions are relevant to what I asked you.

Could you please explain to me, if you have faith in someone to do something, why you have that faith in them?

for me and i suspect many people, its a learned response, as in you have faith or trust that that person is reliable and has proven in the past they can be trusted to do as they say, and so you have faith in them.

hence the expression, trust has to be earned, so i supose faith has to be earned to, or is that a meme, as in, well they were proved to be reliable and put you on the right track or thought, so its reasonable to also link their thoughts/teachings to another truth/or NOT that faith exists!!!!, round and round we go...

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Actually, I edited my post to say it's an empirical fact. Surely, it is not too hard to grasp that having faith that an empirically/objectively observable entity behaves in a certain manner is a different matter than believing in the existence of a supernatural omnipotent being that cannot be objectively observed?

i think it would be only fair to include the word 'yet' in the 'omnipotent being that cannot be objectively observed', after all it might be the case one day they can finally observe these things....

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

But if it is empirically measured and observed and documented, is it faith?

sure, infact more so, as now people can see this 'empirically measured and observed and documented' thing that backs up the learned faith...

---------- Post added at 17:55 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not at all, it's called debate.

I don't agree to that. The use of the word faith (based on my perception of it) is correct on both counts.

It is a question of managing your expectations based on personal view points. To a child the tooth fairy and Father Christmas are very real and their faith that they will receive presents is usually justified and rewarded. As you get older and find out the truth about Father Christmas you find out the truth and lose your faith - you don't expect anything.

Whereas the religious amongst us believe that Christ is the truth and therefore are wholly justified in having their faith.

you dont need to be religious to beleave that jesus existed, infact i think many/most people do think he did, he was just another bloke that was hard done by, and had his own memes to deal with for his timeframe, he earned a few quid here and there working with wood,and perhaps later found he could make more money and fame in politics and arbitration etc..... its all relative, and in context of the times i supose.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Do you think other people have similar reasons for having faith in people they know, or do you think everyone has different reasons, ie not relying on past experiences or reputation?

Or to put it more simply, are you the only person to use past experiences of someone to have or not have faith in them?

I have no idea, I don't spend much time wondering about how other people utilise faith - you'll have to ask them yourself. As you're aware faith is personal.

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

sure, infact more so, as now people can see this 'empirically measured and observed and documented' thing that backs up the learned faith...

Surely then it's no longer faith but 'proof'?

[popper]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I have no idea, I don't spend much time wondering about how other people utilise faith - you'll have to ask them yourself. As you're aware faith is personal.

im suprised at that answer, after all the collective is suposedly better and so it would be in everyones interest to understand that collective thinking to get concensus and deeper understanding...
---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------

Surely then it's no longer faith but 'proof'?

no its not, its just an extension of faith, after all just look at all the people of faith, many people seem to have more faith in the book (whatever book that might be) than they do of their fellow humans.

even though many of these books are carbon dated and show they are infact a collection of works over many years/centurys ,not infact a one and only time original collective work of the founders that were there if you will...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by popper

im suprised at that answer, after all the collective is suposedly better and so it would be in everyones interest to understand that collective thinking to get concensus and deeper understanding...

But it's none of my business what other people believe in.

[christopherw]

Creationism = thinly-veiled religious education (largely specific to one religion, too, do you think Sikhs or Muslims really want to know every little detail about how God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and had a kip on the seventh?)

Evolution = common sense. Granted there's still some evolutionary gaps (the "missing link", for e.g.) but anybody in their right mind can see just how similar we are to apes, right down to a genetic level. That isn't just coincidence.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I have no idea, I don't spend much time wondering about how other people utilise faith - you'll have to ask them yourself. As you're aware faith is personal.

You were interested in it back in #475, hence this line of questions Russ, or were you just doing you're usual thing?

What someone has faith in is personal, what someone uses to decide if they have faith in someone is normally universal.
Which is why I've found it interesting that Chris felt the need to question how a non-religious person can use the word faith, or rather, state that it was odd that a non-religious person should use the word.

Chris, can you take a look at #487 and address the points raised please?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You were interested in it back in #475, hence this line of questions Russ, or were you just doing you're usual thing?

My 'usual thing'? Careful what you say 'boyo'.

I stand by my comment that I don't spend much time worrying about others' use of faith but in "post 475" it's clear I'm asking in response to comments put to me.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What someone has faith in is personal, what someone uses to decide if they have faith in someone is normally universal.
Which is why I've found it interesting that Chris felt the need to question how a non-religious person can use the word faith, or rather, state that it was odd that a non-religious person should use the word.

No-one is saying you lot can't have faith. I'm sure plenty of you have faith that your numbers will come up every wednesday or saturday. Chris was (quite clearly) asking where do you draw the line.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

But it's none of my business what other people believe in.

Unless you really disagree with what they believe.....

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Unless you really disagree with what they believe.....

Or if they insist in ramming their views down my throat.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Please try to avoid this thread becoming personal - if it does it will go the way that they all do, closure.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I trust God to do the 'sensible' thing. How is it different?

Simple. Britain and the Great British Public are provable objects. You can touch them (admittedly not always legally ), see them etc. In the case of Great Britain, we spend most of our lives living on it (the land mass).

With God, AFAIK there is no physical presence you can interact with. You may be able to interact with God, but you cannot walk up and touch Him.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

With God, AFAIK there is no physical presence you can interact with. You may be able to interact with God, but you cannot walk up and touch Him.

The problem is that if someone actually feels that they can interact with 'God' then they are certainly more than capable of believing that they can touch him. Or be touched by him.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Russ B

My 'usual thing'? Careful what you say 'boyo'.

I stand by my comment that I don't spend much time worrying about others' use of faith but in "post 475" it's clear I'm asking in response to comments put to me.



No-one is saying you lot can't have faith. I'm sure plenty of you have faith that your numbers will come up every wednesday or saturday. Chris was (quite clearly) asking where do you draw the line.

Surely you realise that the same word can have several different definitions though? The word faith as used originally is completely different from the religious meaning of it - just look it up in the dictionary, the religious meaning will have a definition of its own.

Anyway wasn't this thread about whether creationism should be given the same status as evolution in our schools? The argument over the meaning of the word faith seems to have glossed over the fact that the government have given that a resounding no.