We base so much of what we believe on the information we have

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:How can we know the information we have is true and what do we do with information to the contrary??

eddie wrote:HF your thinking is similar to mine: I question the things we get drummed into us all the time.

We get told something in the newspapers, that is repeated on the news and then repeated by people in authority and before we know it, we are believing it without question.

It doesn't matter what it is in regards to, we just believe it.

And in that sense, religion and science are very similar in how they can brainwash people.

eddie wrote:HF your thinking is similar to mine: I question the things we get drummed into us all the time.

We get told something in the newspapers, that is repeated on the news and then repeated by people in authority and before we know it, we are believing it without question.

It doesn't matter what it is in regards to, we just believe it.

And in that sense, religion and science are very similar in how they can brainwash people.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

eddie wrote:HF your thinking is similar to mine: I question the things we get drummed into us all the time.

We get told something in the newspapers, that is repeated on the news and then repeated by people in authority and before we know it, we are believing it without question.

It doesn't matter what it is in regards to, we just believe it.

And in that sense, religion and science are very similar in how they can brainwash people.

Precisely and we very seldom have all the information we need or the time to do the research, i do think science is strengthened by the white coat theory but that's another issue all together.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:How can we know the information we have is true and what do we do with information to the contrary??

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:How can we know the information we have is true and what do we do with information to the contrary??

Get a blood test.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
How can we know the information we have is true and what do we do with information to the contrary??

eddie wrote:HF your thinking is similar to mine: I question the things we get drummed into us all the time.

We get told something in the newspapers, that is repeated on the news and then repeated by people in authority and before we know it, we are believing it without question.

It doesn't matter what it is in regards to, we just believe it.

And in that sense, religion and science are very similar in how they can brainwash people.

Lone Wolf wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
How can we know the information we have is true and what do we do with information to the contrary??

YOU MEAN like those famous old "all natural cancer cures" scams that you and your good missus make your living from  ???

YOU disgusting and deplorable thieving scum..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I really wasn't posting this as a subject of faith in the bible or faith at all, just on the basis that much of what we decide to believe is based on little more than choice, we are seldom or ever in possession of any concrete facts, the facts we do appear to have maybe biased or actually finally balanced between for and against, in my mind we decide what information to be authoritative and what we will chose to be non authoritative and we do so arbitrarily.  

According to the August 10, 2010 Boston Globe, Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser has decided to take a year-long leave of absence after evidence of scientific misconduct was found in his lab. On the basis of an investigation by Harvard University, at least one scientific paper (from the journal Cognition) has been retracted, and others may be as well. Hauser is a prominent member of the scientific community. Much of his research has looked at non-human primates and has examined complex mental abilities such as communication and reasoning.

I find cases like this both frustrating and reassuring at the same time.

The frustrating part of cases of misconduct is fairly obvious. As a scientist, all I really have is the integrity of my data. Theories are nice, of course. We create theories to help us to explain patterns of data. But, really, theories are most useful because they help use to develop new questions that we can ask that will help use to collect new data. Our understanding of all facets of the universe from the movements of the planets to the behavior of people is rooted in our ability to collect good data.

And scientists hold a special place in their hearts for people who collected and analyzed good data. Newton may have come up with the laws of motion, but he recognized the importance of previous scientists like Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler whose data was crucial in revising our beliefs about the way planets move around the sun. As Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

So, it is frustrating to hear about misconduct that compromises the integrity of the data in the field.

At the same time, cases of misconduct are reassuring. Science is remarkably self-correcting. When we publish papers in scientific journals, we organize our papers in a way that reflects the ideals laid out by Francis Bacon. We give enough of the details about our methods that someone else could repeat the study we are presenting. We present details about the analysis of our data. After a paper is published, authors often make their data available to others who want to do additional analyses of the work.

If a result piques the interest of other scientists, then their first step is usually to try to repeat the experiment, perhaps with a few changes to test alternative explanations for a finding. Because scientists are always repeating each other's experiments, it is hard for a fictitious result to hang on for very long.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I really wasn't posting this as a subject of faith in the bible or faith at all, just on the basis that much of what we decide to believe is based on little more than choice, we are seldom or ever in possession of any concrete facts, the facts we do appear to have maybe biased or actually finally balanced between for and against, in my mind we decide what information to be authoritative and what we will chose to be non authoritative and we do so arbitrarily.  

Hogcock! (That's a cross between "hogwash" and "poppycock.")

Authority in the sense you're using the word is based upon something -- usually competence. If someone's work is of reliably high quality, people put more trust in their future work within their field. Of course everybody no matter how talented can and will be wrong from time to time, but that's where the self-correcting nature of the scientific community helps.

According to the August 10, 2010 Boston Globe, Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser has decided to take a year-long leave of absence after evidence of scientific misconduct was found in his lab. On the basis of an investigation by Harvard University, at least one scientific paper (from the journal Cognition) has been retracted, and others may be as well. Hauser is a prominent member of the scientific community. Much of his research has looked at non-human primates and has examined complex mental abilities such as communication and reasoning.

I find cases like this both frustrating and reassuring at the same time.

The frustrating part of cases of misconduct is fairly obvious. As a scientist, all I really have is the integrity of my data. Theories are nice, of course. We create theories to help us to explain patterns of data. But, really, theories are most useful because they help use to develop new questions that we can ask that will help use to collect new data. Our understanding of all facets of the universe from the movements of the planets to the behavior of people is rooted in our ability to collect good data.

And scientists hold a special place in their hearts for people who collected and analyzed good data. Newton may have come up with the laws of motion, but he recognized the importance of previous scientists like Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler whose data was crucial in revising our beliefs about the way planets move around the sun. As Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

So, it is frustrating to hear about misconduct that compromises the integrity of the data in the field.

At the same time, cases of misconduct are reassuring. Science is remarkably self-correcting. When we publish papers in scientific journals, we organize our papers in a way that reflects the ideals laid out by Francis Bacon. We give enough of the details about our methods that someone else could repeat the study we are presenting. We present details about the analysis of our data. After a paper is published, authors often make their data available to others who want to do additional analyses of the work.

If a result piques the interest of other scientists, then their first step is usually to try to repeat the experiment, perhaps with a few changes to test alternative explanations for a finding. Because scientists are always repeating each other's experiments, it is hard for a fictitious result to hang on for very long.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201008/why-science-is-self-correcting

TL/DR: Scientists aren't just making claims and asking people to trust them on it.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I really wasn't posting this as a subject of faith in the bible or faith at all, just on the basis that much of what we decide to believe is based on little more than choice, we are seldom or ever in possession of any concrete facts, the facts we do appear to have maybe biased or actually finally balanced between for and against, in my mind we decide what information to be authoritative and what we will chose to be non authoritative and we do so arbitrarily.  

Hogcock! (That's a cross between "hogwash" and "poppycock.")

Authority in the sense you're using the word is based upon something -- usually competence. If someone's work is of reliably high quality, people put more trust in their future work within their field. Of course everybody no matter how talented can and will be wrong from time to time, but that's where the self-correcting nature of the scientific community helps.

According to the August 10, 2010 Boston Globe, Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser has decided to take a year-long leave of absence after evidence of scientific misconduct was found in his lab. On the basis of an investigation by Harvard University, at least one scientific paper (from the journal Cognition) has been retracted, and others may be as well. Hauser is a prominent member of the scientific community. Much of his research has looked at non-human primates and has examined complex mental abilities such as communication and reasoning.

I find cases like this both frustrating and reassuring at the same time.

The frustrating part of cases of misconduct is fairly obvious. As a scientist, all I really have is the integrity of my data. Theories are nice, of course. We create theories to help us to explain patterns of data. But, really, theories are most useful because they help use to develop new questions that we can ask that will help use to collect new data. Our understanding of all facets of the universe from the movements of the planets to the behavior of people is rooted in our ability to collect good data.

And scientists hold a special place in their hearts for people who collected and analyzed good data. Newton may have come up with the laws of motion, but he recognized the importance of previous scientists like Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler whose data was crucial in revising our beliefs about the way planets move around the sun. As Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

So, it is frustrating to hear about misconduct that compromises the integrity of the data in the field.

At the same time, cases of misconduct are reassuring. Science is remarkably self-correcting. When we publish papers in scientific journals, we organize our papers in a way that reflects the ideals laid out by Francis Bacon. We give enough of the details about our methods that someone else could repeat the study we are presenting. We present details about the analysis of our data. After a paper is published, authors often make their data available to others who want to do additional analyses of the work.

If a result piques the interest of other scientists, then their first step is usually to try to repeat the experiment, perhaps with a few changes to test alternative explanations for a finding. Because scientists are always repeating each other's experiments, it is hard for a fictitious result to hang on for very long.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201008/why-science-is-self-correcting

TL/DR: Scientists aren't just making claims and asking people to trust them on it.

I disagree what we decide to be authoritative is just that, we can all happily over look a glaring blot on the horizon of what we believe and pin it to an anomaly or something of that ilk, I believe we do it all the time. We do not want to be proved wrong in something we have held tightly too.  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I disagree what we decide to be authoritative is just that, we can all happily over look a glaring blot on the horizon of what we believe and pin it to an anomaly or something of that ilk, I believe we do it all the time. We do not want to be proved wrong in something we have held tightly too.  

I disagree with you! Personally I find it exhilarating beyond belief to see something I always assumed was correct turned on its head. It shows me that our race has still got plenty ahead of it, discoveries and breakthroughs and deeper understanding. I don't want to feel like I'm living during the times when everything worth discovering has been discovered. I want to be able to take part in these new revelations about the universe. I don't want to see us simply re-state what we already know; I want us to know more and more and more.

As far as anomalies go, they of course exist. I think we have to recognize it and punish it when one so-called authority's statements are becoming more "anomaly" than correct.

Case in point, there are American loonies who say we're doomed if we don't go back to the gold standard as the foundation of our money. They started in the late '60s and early '70s, and they've been consistently saying that America will collapse within a decade. So it should already have collapsed every year since at least 1980. Those types of people don't deserve authority. The person who always does a good job fixing your car deserves authority.

veya_victaous wrote:@HF
the Bible cannot be correct
Simply as that it we can give creation dates of 6,000 years ago based on the fact we know about real people written about in the bible

I have seen with my own eyes an aboriginal site that is over 15,000 years old in continual use.
there are some in the northern territory that are over 40,000 years old, proven, they even document other geological events we know about form other sources

Honestly I don't even know how you can fit the existence of aboriginals into Abrahmic religions  and aboriginals do exist

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@HF
the Bible cannot be correct
Simply as that it we can give creation dates of 6,000 years ago based on the fact we know about real people written about in the bible

I have seen with my own eyes an aboriginal site that is over 15,000 years old in continual use.
there are some in the northern territory that are over 40,000 years old, proven, they even document other geological events we know about form other sources

Honestly I don't even know how you can fit the existence of aboriginals into Abrahmic religions  and aboriginals do exist

the bible does not state the age of the earth, so you are wrong there, a term used for the age of the earth in scripture is eternity or forever and warns it should be taught as such.

perhaps you trust in your biased sources.

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

the bible does not state the age of the earth, so you are wrong there, a term used for the age of the earth in scripture is eternity or forever and warns it should be taught as such.

perhaps you trust in your biased sources.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/how-does-mans-history-fit-with-the-biblical-timeline/

Like a bible site trying to say the pyramids are younger than they are

It explains your argument probably a lot better than you can, (read it you might find some points to stuff didge up later )

But regardless the Pyramids are young compared to the Aboriginals history

Ben... wrote:As far as anomalies go, they of course exist. I think we have to recognize it and punish it when one so-called authority's statements are becoming more "anomaly" than correct.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I really wasn't posting this as a subject of faith in the bible or faith at all, just on the basis that much of what we decide to believe is based on little more than choice, we are seldom or ever in possession of any concrete facts, the facts we do appear to have maybe biased or actually finally balanced between for and against, in my mind we decide what information to be authoritative and what we will chose to be non authoritative and we do so arbitrarily.  

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I really wasn't posting this as a subject of faith in the bible or faith at all, just on the basis that much of what we decide to believe is based on little more than choice, we are seldom or ever in possession of any concrete facts, the facts we do appear to have maybe biased or actually finally balanced between for and against, in my mind we decide what information to be authoritative and what we will chose to be non authoritative and we do so arbitrarily.  

Ironic, but here I must argue against your disclaimer of a discussion of faith.  When you raise questions of epistemology--even tangentially--you are immediately in the realm of faith.  We cannot know what we know without knowing how we know.

I raise the idea of The Bible only as an example of the earlier stages of faith (in epistemology).  Early religions were an attempt to figure out ontology (the nature of being), which led to discussions over epistemology (methods, validity, and scope of knowledge).  As we became aware of questions of an epistemological nature, religion became more self-conscious about the how do we know question...and it came up with faith.  But old story-telling concepts of religion were being abandoned in favor of methodological concepts, and science was born (in the Renaissance period).

So, you say there is no such thing as fact.  Fundamentally, I agree; but while everything is a form of faith, I say there are progressively better kinds of faith.  Faith born of experience is better than faith born of imaginings or story-telling.  Even if the story-telling is based upon your father's stories, they are a being filtered through another's consciousness--think of it as a language.  If we are not familiar with that language, we are an interpreter, a non-conversant.  Hence, in the Bible they speak of scripture, not experience.

Science is not interpretation, but direct experience.  Indeed, we even call the doing of science, experimentation.  That is, anyone can take the methods it prescribes and experience for themselves the results.  That is where science gives us more confidence than, say, the story-telling Bible.  It gives us intuitive faith, so far from counterintuitive faith.

HFA wrote:I would disagree there is only what we chose to accept and what we chose to ignore, that is all we can base our beliefs upon,

HOF wrote:we are never in possessions of all the facts,

HFA wrote:even if we were much of the information would be beyond us written by alleged experts who have devoted their lives to the information they have found,

HFA wrote:again what information is unbiased or is perceived as unbiased, this equally becomes choice on our part, if you are given to conspiracies the choice becomes either more clouded or more clear depending on who you believe is giving true information.

Original Quill wrote:

HFA wrote:I would disagree there is only what we chose to accept and what we chose to ignore, that is all we can base our beliefs upon,

I think you are wrong…I suggest you haven’t discovered that part of yourself yet.  You are embracing a lower-level understanding of your cognitive beliefs, not having explored it fully.

HOF wrote:we are never in possessions of all the facts,

Right there  is a statement of intuition, based upon your inner familiarity with yourself.

HFA wrote:even if we were much of the information would be beyond us written by alleged experts who have devoted their lives to the information they have found,

That is situational, not essential.  Anything situational can be made less remote by doing the fact-testing yourself.  Essentially remote claims are those those that cannot be tested, and must be taken on faith.  That's where we get into intuitive faith, and counterintuitive faith.

HFA wrote:again what information is unbiased or is perceived as unbiased, this equally becomes choice on our part, if you are given to conspiracies the choice becomes either more clouded or more clear depending on who you believe is giving true information.

No…depending on your own intuition.

I go back to my own example.  I would never jump off a cliff, because my intuition based upon intimate experience tells me it would hurt.

But some belief systems—Christianity, for example—accept counterintuitive facts…god walks on clouds, Christ rose from the dead, water can be changed into wine.  These are counterintuitive and based not upon our intimate experience, but because someone told them to us (ie, usually in Bible-study class).

Some claims of faith are more reliable, because they are intuitive, not counterintuitive.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are wrong…I suggest you haven’t discovered that part of yourself yet.  You are embracing a lower-level understanding of your cognitive beliefs, not having explored it fully.




Right there  is a statement of intuition, based upon your inner familiarity with yourself.



That is situational, not essential.  Anything situational can be made less remote by doing the fact-testing yourself.  Essentially remote claims are those those that cannot be tested, and must be taken on faith.  That's where we get into intuitive faith, and counterintuitive faith.



No…depending on your own intuition.

I go back to my own example.  I would never jump off a cliff, because my intuition based upon intimate experience tells me it would hurt.

But some belief systems—Christianity, for example—accept counterintuitive facts…god walks on clouds, Christ rose from the dead, water can be changed into wine.  These are counterintuitive and based not upon our intimate experience, but because someone told them to us (ie, usually in Bible-study class).

Some claims of faith are more reliable, because they are intuitive, not counterintuitive.

so we are not to believe in the supernatural unless it involves UFO,  ghosts, I don't see that a very good argument.

HFA wrote:
tell me how someone could research fossils and test them for themselves, do you really thing the average person could do the test required make a fully informed decision, I don't think so.

HFA wrote:many base jumpers do just that and they call it fun.

HFA wrote:jumping off a cliff ha nothing to do with research or testing, neither has deciding to stick yur hand in a fire.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so we are not to believe in the supernatural unless it involves UFO,  ghosts, I don't see that a very good argument.

Frankly, I don’t subscribe to any such things, but I do believe that they are plausible.  So is god plausible…or, s/he could simply be an extraterrestrial.  Anything goes.  I don’t disallow anything, but I only have confidence it things I can or have experienced.

HFA wrote:
tell me how someone could research fossils and test them for themselves, do you really thing the average person could do the test required make a fully informed decision, I don't think so.

Of course.  If they received the appropriate training.  Again, that’s just a situational need.

HFA wrote:many base jumpers do just that and they call it fun.

But they have benefit of further experiential knowledge, which tells them that under the proper conditions (a parawing) it will be all right.  Frankly, just as many have jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge equally certain about their fate (death).  The difference is in knowledge or experience, and preparation.

HFA wrote:jumping off a cliff ha nothing to do with research or testing, neither has deciding to stick yur hand in a fire.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Frankly, I don’t subscribe to any such things, but I do believe that they are plausible.  So is god plausible…or, s/he could simply be an extraterrestrial.  Anything goes.  I don’t disallow anything, but I only have confidence it things I can or have experienced.



Of course.  If they received the appropriate training.  Again, that’s just a situational need.



But they have benefit of further experiential knowledge, which tells them that under the proper conditions (a parawing) it will be all right.  Frankly, just as many have jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge equally certain about their fate (death).  The difference is in knowledge or experience, and preparation.

HFA wrote:
Why do you say that?  When something is ‘situational’ it means it is only conditioned on the given situation.  When something is ‘essential’ it means it is unconditional.

Your examples are all situational.  Just as a base jumper can jump with proper equipment, so can someone put a hand in flames with proper fire-resistant equipment (gloves).

Yes, that is right.

HFA wrote:lol.. so you actually believe that a perfectly ordinary person can gather some fossils, get some equipment, accurately carbon date the fossils he has acquired and come to his own conclusions..
kinda makes you wonder why we bother with scientists and experts really...  

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:



Yes, that is right.



With the proper training and equipment, yes.  Scientists are such people.  So are experts.

A paleontologist is a scientist who studies fossils.

You would need a different expert for radio carbon dating...a radiocarbon archaeologists, or scientist.  http://www.radiocarbon.com/archaeology.htm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

the average Joe, for want of a better label, has no fossils, no machines, no understanding, they could never do their own research, your logic is flawed.

HFA wrote:the sheeple are left with the choice to believe the person in the white coat, that's why the religion of evolution runs on faith, faith in the man in the white coat.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:


the average Joe, for want of a better label, has no fossils, no machines, no understanding, they could never do their own research, your logic is flawed.

I have two doctorate degrees, tho not in paleontology.  I could have chosen that field had I wanted, and with a job with a research university I would have the equipment.  And I am quite ordinary.

HFA wrote:the sheeple are left with the choice to believe the person in the white coat, that's why the religion of evolution runs on faith, faith in the man in the white coat.

You can't be everyone, everywhere.  The point is that an ordinary person could do this, or you could take the word of the person who has done it.

But you have again missed the point.  We are talking about a methodology, not a person.  Every person has the methodology and resources available to him or her, should s/he wish to pursue the knowledge.

The fact that you may not be the person that pursues such a profession is simply situational, not essentially impossible.

HFA wrote:I totally disagree, the average person cannot and will not educate themselves to that level, they have neither the resources or the compulsion to do so..

HFA wrote:they will take as read what the white coats tell them.

HFA wrote:just spend a day on facebook and you will see for yourself the general level of education that this nation has stooped too.

Original Quill wrote:

HFA wrote:I totally disagree, the average person cannot and will not educate themselves to that level, they have neither the resources or the compulsion to do so..

Nevertheless, it’s available to him or her.

HFA wrote:they will take as read what the white coats tell them.

Are you suggesting that the white coats are a different species, or the same species?  It makes a difference because if they are the same species then it is entirely possible for them to learn for themselves.

HFA wrote:just spend a day on facebook and you will see for yourself the general level of education that this nation has stooped too.

Nevertheless, it’s available to them.

When we say this is a capability that mankind can do, we don’t expect each and every one among mankind to do everything.  People specialize, and according to that format, they accept as expert what the other does.  Sometimes that’s a disappointment, but in the main it works.

To say that not every man becomes a paleontologist is not to say that the study of paleontology is unavailable to mankind.  It is indeed available to not only mankind, but each and every person within the species; however there must be trust and repeatability.  Because we are social beings, we can take the word of one another...tho we may not always.

However, questions of epistemology cannot be taken for granted.  Knowledge is eminently personal.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nevertheless, it’s available to him or her.



Are you suggesting that the white coats are a different species, or the same species?  It makes a difference because if they are the same species then it is entirely possible for them to learn for themselves.



Nevertheless, it’s available to them.

When we say this is a capability that mankind can do, we don’t expect each and every one among mankind to do everything.  People specialize, and according to that format, they accept as expert what the other does.  Sometimes that’s a disappointment, but in the main it works.

To say that not every man becomes a paleontologist is not to say that the study of paleontology is unavailable to mankind.  It is indeed available to not only mankind, but each and every person within the species; however there must be trust and repeatability.  Because we are social beings, we can take the word of one another...tho we may not always.

However, questions of epistemology cannot be taken for granted.  Knowledge is eminently personal.

the top of Everest is available to us all, how many can afford the time, the equipment or stand the training and physical rigours.
going to space is possible but very very unlikely.

HFA wrote:even if they had all the training and equipment to test fossils, how would they get hold of such things.

HFA wrote:it is quite obvious the vast majority of the followers of the religion of evolution follow by faith as they have no other way.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

the top of Everest is available to us all, how many can afford the time, the equipment or stand the training and physical rigours.
going to space is possible but very very unlikely.

“Unlikely” is not the issue.  Return to the starting point of this conversation: how do we know? We use ‘experience’ as a basis for knowledge.

It matters not how many have had the requisite experience for any given fact; it is the idea of experience that gives us the security of knowledge.  Moreover, experience is timeless and uniform...it will happen every time under the same conditions.

If we have to rely on the word of another, that’s perfectly acceptable.  Evidence does not have to be personal.  Many of us haven’t experienced the actual spark of an internal combustion engine, but we still climb into the automobile confident that it will take us to work.  We rely on the experience of others because we are a community, and we experience things for one another and communicate our experiences to one another.

HFA wrote:even if they had all the training and equipment to test fossils, how would they get hold of such things.

Nothing is impossible.  Fossils: you find them on the ground.  Equipment: The first personal computer was made of wires and a breadboard, made in a garage in Palo Alto, California.  All the plastic and stainless steel you see before you is mere dressing.  Nothing is impossible.

HFA wrote:it is quite obvious the vast majority of the followers of the religion of evolution follow by faith as they have no other way.

Science is faith too, as I have been trying to point out.  It is a better, more reliable faith in our collective selves and what we are capable of, than the older tribal religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), which rely on folk stories.  It is a faith that our experience will be uniformly repeated whenever the same conditions are repeated.  

If we place a firecracker under a can and light it, the can will fly when the firecracker ignites.  This will happen every time you do the same actions, and repeat the same conditions.  We learned this from experience—it is science, relying on experiments (testing), which are a part of our experience.  The ingenuity of mankind is so great that we have been able to duplicate, and build upon this experiment so well, that we have actually landed a man on the moon.

That is the religion of science and what it can do.  It is straightforward and simple and didn't take an old man in the sky, lifting his cryptic finger and making it so.  We made it so.  We relied and built upon our experience, and so ended up with space travel and another heavenly body in our domain.  That is a religion far more reliable and certain that an old man in the sky.

HFA wrote:lol.. that is total twaddle the average man cannot research evolution for himself and you know that, saying it is possible is akin to saying we could grow wings and fly.

HFA wrote:the religion of evolution requires faith, blind faith in what the white coats say.

Original Quill wrote:

HFA wrote:lol.. that is total twaddle the average man cannot research evolution for himself and you know that, saying it is possible is akin to saying we could grow wings and fly.

Nonsense...believing in an old man in the sky who performs magic tricks for the children is total twaddle.  That is the belief that is akin to growing wings and flying--indeed, isn't that what you are saying your old man can do?

What the average man can and cannot do is not the question.  It is what mankind can do that is the issue.  You seem to be confused between the individual and the community.  The individual is "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family...of or for a particular person."   A community, on the other hand, is "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common...or, common attitudes, interests, and goals."  Moreover, a community is a collectivity of individuals, such that what one can do is also what they all can do.

The point is that the faith choice is different: humanity, together with our experiences, or a god who walks on clouds.  The former is realizable, tangible and reliable.  The latter is mythical, and quite frankly...fictional.

HFA wrote:the religion of evolution requires faith, blind faith in what the white coats say.

Evolution is merely experience over time.  Many, if not most of us have had children, and grandchildren, some perhaps even great-grandchildren.  We notice changes and differences in the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren--eye colors, hair, height, gender--an infinite variety of characteristics--and we come to the conclusion that people change over time.  Then we notice like similarities between species, and we extrapolate from that the theory of evolution.  It's a theory built upon experience.

Now, that is imminently more grounded than believing in an old man in the sky, who has no living quarters, but walks on clouds, wears a sheet that never gets dirty, and performs magic tricks for the children.

The only faith you need for evolution is to believe your own eyes.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

HFA wrote:lol.. that is total twaddle the average man cannot research evolution for himself and you know that, saying it is possible is akin to saying we could grow wings and fly.

Nonsense...believing in an old man in the sky who performs magic tricks for the children is total twaddle.  That is the belief that is akin to growing wings and flying--indeed, isn't that what you are saying your old man can do?

What the average man can and cannot do is not the question.  It is what mankind can do that is the issue.  You seem to be confused between the individual and the community.  The individual is "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family...of or for a particular person."   A community, on the other hand, is "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common...or, common attitudes, interests, and goals."  Moreover, a community is a collectivity of individuals, such that what one can do is also what they all can do.

The point is that the faith choice is different: humanity, together with our experiences, or a god who walks on clouds.  The former is realizable, tangible and reliable.  The latter is mythical, and quite frankly...fictional.

HFA wrote:the religion of evolution requires faith, blind faith in what the white coats say.

Evolution is merely experience over time.  Many, if not most of us have had children, and grandchildren, some perhaps even great-grandchildren.  We notice changes and differences in the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren--eye colors, hair, height, gender--an infinite variety of characteristics--and we come to the conclusion that people change over time.  Then we notice like similarities between species, and we extrapolate from that the theory of evolution.  It's a theory built upon experience.

Now, that is imminently more grounded than believing in an old man in the sky, who has no living quarters, but walks on clouds, wears a sheet that never gets dirty, and performs magic tricks for the children.

The only faith you need for evolution is to believe your own eyes.

we do not notice our grand children have become another species..lol well you might..

evolution cannot be researched and tested by the masses it is taken on faith that the people who tell them are telling the truth, it is a religion created by those who want an alternative to God did it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Also, evolution is tested by ordinary people all the time who are trying to kill pests out of a crop or infections from their own bodies, and find that the pests/bacteria are newly resistant to pesticides or antibiotics that used to wipe them out. That's evolution.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense...believing in an old man in the sky who performs magic tricks for the children is total twaddle.  That is the belief that is akin to growing wings and flying--indeed, isn't that what you are saying your old man can do?

What the average man can and cannot do is not the question.  It is what mankind can do that is the issue.  You seem to be confused between the individual and the community.  The individual is "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family...of or for a particular person."   A community, on the other hand, is "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common...or, common attitudes, interests, and goals."  Moreover, a community is a collectivity of individuals, such that what one can do is also what they all can do.

The point is that the faith choice is different: humanity, together with our experiences, or a god who walks on clouds.  The former is realizable, tangible and reliable.  The latter is mythical, and quite frankly...fictional.



Evolution is merely experience over time.  Many, if not most of us have had children, and grandchildren, some perhaps even great-grandchildren.  We notice changes and differences in the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren--eye colors, hair, height, gender--an infinite variety of characteristics--and we come to the conclusion that people change over time.  Then we notice like similarities between species, and we extrapolate from that the theory of evolution.  It's a theory built upon experience.

Now, that is imminently more grounded than believing in an old man in the sky, who has no living quarters, but walks on clouds, wears a sheet that never gets dirty, and performs magic tricks for the children.

The only faith you need for evolution is to believe your own eyes.

we do not notice our grand children have become another species..lol well you might..

evolution cannot be researched and tested by the masses it is taken on faith that the people who tell them are telling the truth, it is a religion created by those who want an alternative to God did it.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

we do not notice our grand children have become another species..lol well you might..

evolution cannot be researched and tested by the masses it is taken on faith that the people who tell them are telling the truth, it is a religion created by those who want an alternative to God did it.

Well, that is why we research it.  When we walk long distances from east to west, we don't notice the curvature of the earth, either.  We have to experience some things indirectly.  Other things might require additional evidence...for example the Doppler effect...but it works.  We have invented ways of measuring by indirect means...for example again, the redshift.  Or Snell's Law of Refraction when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.  When we begin to mix empirical evidence, we can combine our experiences and end up on the moon, or with the genetic code.

A good read for you would be Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Kuhn speaks of our current beliefs (eg, the earth is flat) having anomalies around the edges, which loom larger and larger until someone simply comes up with a different theory.  Galileo with Christianity.  Newton with physics.  Einstein with time and space.  All of them dealt with anomalies and came up with a solution or solutions that resolved the irregularities.

It is not evolution that we take on faith.  There are plenty of indirect measures that tend to confirm evolution, as well as many other theories.  It is empiricism--the belief in our sensory perception--that we must take on faith.  We must have faith in materialism, as opposed to some form of idealism, before we develop an epistemology.  That is the level which competes with religion.

HFA wrote:
I don't think much research is required to realise the earth is in fact round, that is quite different to understanding the life time studies of many scientists, sifting through their findings, checking their findings have no bias, having your own materials to experiment on, having your own equipment to experiment with, having the know how to do either and even after all that the science community would probably laugh at you and your results because you are not recognised as an authority on the subject in any way.

Original Quill wrote:

HFA wrote:
I don't think much research is required to realise the earth is in fact round, that is quite different to understanding the life time studies of many scientists, sifting through their findings, checking their findings have no bias, having your own materials to experiment on, having your own equipment to experiment with, having the know how to do either and even after all that the science community would probably laugh at you and your results because you are not recognised as an authority on the subject in any way.

Well, it's a system that works.  We specialize and we accumulate, and we end up building a pretty wonderful world around us.  We cure illnesses, travel to the moon, build buildings and bridges and dams...all sorts of things.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:



Yes, that is right.



With the proper training and equipment, yes.  Scientists are such people.  So are experts.

A paleontologist is a scientist who studies fossils.

You would need a different expert for radio carbon dating...a radiocarbon archaeologists, or scientist.  http://www.radiocarbon.com/archaeology.htm

the average Joe, for want of a better label, has no fossils, no machines, no understanding, they could never do their own research, your logic is flawed.

the sheeple are left with the choice to believe the person in the white coat, that's why the religion of evolution runs on faith, faith in the man in the white coat.