UK loses faith

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Do you have any links to papers published supporting Creationist science? I am really interested in how they prove their hypothesis.

This seems to give a list of both creation and evolution scientists. Click on a name and it gives a list of qualifications and papers they have written. It would then be a case of googling any name who's qualifications etc., take your fancy.


http://www.christiananswers.net/crea...ople/home.html

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Let's not look at atheism as a faith. It's a faith in the same way that 'Off' is a TV channel. The only people who can be described as having a 'faith' in atheism are those who think they know there's no higher power and they are being ignorant. Even Dawkins himself doesn't claim that.

It's an absence of faith, not an anti-faith. It is a basic human right to permit someone to follow a faith. All who are anti-faith are probably by definition atheists, far from all atheists are actively anti-faith. For right now it has a place and is key to many people's lives. Some base their entire life around their faith and, regardless of my view on that, that is their absolute right.

I am anti- a few things that are related to faith for sure. I'm against those who misuse science to present a warped version of reality, usually for material gain. I'm against those who misuse faith to justify inhumanity. Faith itself? Meh.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------



Interesting article. The take-home there, for me, is that it's probably not possible for someone with faith to understand why someone without could not see evangelism as anything other than an act of love.

One person's self-evident truth is another's self-evident untruth.

EDIT: Can't you tell work is quieter than normal today?

EDIT 2: Which actually makes me think my time would be better spent studying than commenting on a religious thread. Russ / Chris, remember when I used to go all-in on these? I don't miss that version of me. Age clearly mellowed me a little even if it did up the cynicism count a bit. Well, age but most of all humanism. Once you find a group of like-minded people and are able to learn from them you feel far more secure in your own belief system, it becomes far more rounded and as a result feel far less inclined to try and, essentially, impose it other people by telling them how ridiculous anything different is.

Man I was a real Richard at times with that stuff. Still a tad evangelical over science, mind you, but happy to admit I don't know and science doesn't know when we don't - see abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc.

It's certainly a lot calmer all round these days.

Your example of the TV off switch is possibly better than you realise. In some of what you say, you're conflating belief (something you hold to be true) with faith (your response to what you believe). But, just as switching off your TV is a practical response arising from your belief its contents are rubbish, living without reference to a deity or a sense of responsibility to a higher authority is a faith response to the belief that there is no such thing.

I believe that God is as described in the Bible and that the way he calls people to live is trustworthy and true. My faith response is to enter into that pattern of living.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

The evolutionary model does not make an assumption on abiogenesis. That is a fallacy that is repeated by those who posit intelligent design. Indeed it appears this was a major criticism of that author.

The proposition that matter and energy are all that is necessary to produce life is not unscientific. Life is, fundamentally, self-replicating molecules. We can create these with nothing other than matter and energy. When we reproduce we are using nothing other than matter and energy to do so.

As the gentleman noted if you leave matter to itself it does not organise, without outside input into a system it will tend towards being less ordered due to entropy, thermodynamics, etc, however the matter wasn't left to itself, it was not a closed system.

I presume this was an attempt to simplify.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

How can you be so sure? There seem to be many scientists who believe in creation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...cientists.html

There are far, far more who don't. A good thing about science is that there is no faith-based unanimous consensus, just a consensus that most readily fits the available evidence.

It's not a bad thing that there are those who dissent. It is a bad thing, however, if they are dissenting for unscientific reasons and covering it with a veneer of science.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

It seems that from a science perspective, without absolute proof on a specific matter, it's a case of 'what model fits best'. Some believe Creation fits best and some believe Evolution fits best. That's why Creation and Evolution are both a belief/faith issue; each person chooses which set of scientists to believe.

Evolution is neither a belief or a faith issue. It is a fact. No-one has shown any robust evidence to support a young Earth. If someone actually could it would be a scientific revolution and they would win a Nobel.

You're actually offering the same arguments that are used when climate change is discussed. There are a small fraction of scientists that, usually due to vested interests be they financial or their belief system, dissent from the consensus therefore there is doubt, and the claim is that there is a conspiracy by 'big science' to silence them.

We have two very different viewpoints. Mine is, for a change, the more mainstream of them. Disagreement is healthy and necessary.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

just look at atheism as a faith

No, because it isn't

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Let's not look at atheism as a faith. It's a faith in the same way that 'Off' is a TV channel. The only people who can be described as having a 'faith' in atheism are those who think they know there's no higher power and they are being ignorant. Even Dawkins himself doesn't claim that.[COLOR="Silver"]

It's an absence of faith, not an anti-faith. It is a basic human right to permit someone to follow a faith. All who are anti-faith are probably by definition atheists, far from all atheists are actively anti-faith. For right now it has a place and is key to many people's lives. Some base their entire life around their faith and, regardless of my view on that, that is their absolute right.
.

I'd rather not label myself, but if I had to do so, it would be atheist. I'm not anti-faith people are free to have a faith/ belief whatever, All power to them.

[alanbjames]

Well ive cast my EU Vote and just sent it as i do postal voting.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Evolution is neither a belief or a faith issue. It is a fact. .

It can not be a fact if a group of scientists disagree with it. It's that simple. Yours may be the predominant view among scientists, but predominance does not make it a fact. You choose to believe the predominant view, therefore you have faith in that view and there is nothing wrong with that.

As quoted before:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

[Osem]

Originally Posted by alanbjames

Well ive cast my EU Vote and just sent it as i do postal voting.

I have faith that you made the right choice.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Osem

I have faith that you made the right choice.

You just beat me to it!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by passingbat

but predominance does not make it a fact.

QFT

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by passingbat

It can not be a fact if a group of scientists disagree with it. It's that simple. Yours may be the predominant view among scientists, but predominance does not make it a fact. You choose to believe the predominant view, therefore you have faith in that view and there is nothing wrong with that

I guess it depends on your definition of what a "fact" is?

This definition, in the context of this discussion, seems appropriate:

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority

Have a view does not make it a fact. Publishing your reasoned arguments, scientific observations and evidence for peer review is a better route.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

This seems to give a list of both creation and evolution scientists. Click on a name and it gives a list of qualifications and papers they have written. It would then be a case of googling any name who's qualifications etc., take your fancy.


http://www.christiananswers.net/crea...ople/home.html

I have researched quite a few of these names. A lot of them appear as contributors to this book:

In Six Days: Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation

I have tried to find some objective reviews of the book and did not fare too well. I found a pompous review by the infamous Mr Dawkins but as you might guess it is rather biased on this subject

From what I can see these scientists are coming to their scientific conclusions based on what their belief compels them to rather than looking at all the available evidence and then concluding that the 6 day Creation model is the best fit for this evidence.

I did not find any published, scientific papers where the Creation theory is presented alongside validated objective evidence from research programmes.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by passingbat

It can not be a fact if a group of scientists disagree with it. It's that simple. Yours may be the predominant view among scientists, but predominance does not make it a fact. You choose to believe the predominant view, therefore you have faith in that view and there is nothing wrong with that.

As quoted before:

Evolution is a scientific theory which means that the evidence for it has been tested and proven many times.

The case for evolution is therefore an undeniable fact, but what we believe evolution to be can change. to quote Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College.

Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Theories are like baskets in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The case for evolution is therefore an undeniable fact, .

Whilst there are qualified scientists disputing Evolution, it can bot be a fact. It can be a fact to you, but anything in dispute, from a recognised body of people, can not be a fact.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact; I don't think you will find anyone who will dispute it (except maybe those who can't add up )

[tweetiepooh]

There has been suggestions that those who believe in creation (or declare belief in) have found it hard to publish even if their field is unlinked. If true this would give rise to a bias in numbers of scientist who believe (or declare belief) in creation as a science.

I do have issues with a young earth and a literal 6x24 hour creation. The Hebrew word in Genesis for day (yom) can mean an extended period but does normally mean 24 hours. It was Arch Bish Ussher who calculated creation at 4004BC but his methods were not accurate as it used genealogies to work backwards from know dates. But the wording in the genealogies, son of/father of, could be translated (and in some cases should be) descendant of/ancestor of.

There is also a distinction to be made between micro-evolution (traits in a species) that is proven and macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) which isn't.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No, because it isn't

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------



I'd rather not label myself, but if I had to do so, it would be atheist. I'm not anti-faith people are free to have a faith/ belief whatever, All power to them.

but a few months back it seemed to give such comfort to our religious brethren to taunt atheists that it was a faith/religion hence my post about spreading the word

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Whilst there are qualified scientists disputing Evolution, it can bot be a fact. It can be a fact to you, but anything in dispute, from a recognised body of people, can not be a fact.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact; I don't think you will find anyone who will dispute it (except maybe those who can't add up )

It is a scientific theory which therefore makes it as clear and undeniable as 2+2=4