Faith vs Faith (Creator, Darwin, Earth, evolution, creation)

[jimbob]

yeah sorry guys. i kinda went off into a rant. i didn't even understand my own post *is ashamed*

basically my gist was, natural selection isn't evolution. natural selection allows certain breeds to form defined characteristics different from before. evolution is the changing completely of a type of animal. i have a pretty good source to explain what i'm trying to say, i'll spend some time scouring my bookshelves tonight.

anyway guys, i'm not for or against evolution. i'm just saying that evolution needs more evidence to upgrade from a theory, while natural selection is fact. therefore, the two can't be the same.


and real quick.....i'm not entirely sure that the whole milk thing is true. Ancient villages in India dating like 6000 years ago...hold on, i'm going to go find what the people are called ....

okay back. Harappa was the civilization. anyway, there is proof that dairy cows were raised. i guess this was before cows were holy or whatnot, but if they were dairy cows were raised, can't we safely assume that milk was used by the people?

or perhaps the harappa people just acquired the ability sooner then others. just figured i should bring that up. i don't want my entire sophomore year or high school history to go to waste.

[painted wolf]

not nessisarily, we don't drink pigs milk we just eat them. Its perfectly logical to assume that milking cows came far later once they were quite domesticated. Its hard to imagine someone trying to milk an animal just a few generations removed from an Aurochs.
Like someone trying to milk a Bison.

anyway, besides that, we only domesticated them a few thousand years ago. Egypt has the oldest records I know of milk drinking. 3,000 odd years ago. Just about the right timing.

Modern Dairy cattle are fairly new late 17th-early 18th century or so.

naturally this mutation didn't happin everywhere, but spread through the population over the next several thousand years with the cows.

wa:do
ps. Natural selection is also a theory in the scientific sence, as is gravity and germs causing illness.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

you're misunderstanding.

Adults loose the ability to digest milk, this is part of the weaning process. (one of the worst things you can give your cat is actually milk, they love the taste but can't digest it properly)
Our mutation lets us digest milk into adulthood, not only our own kind but that of other animals. Which is extra wierd because they contain "formulas"/protiens that are specific to thier species. Cow milk is intended for cows, dogs milk for dogs.

wa:do

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. I read an article recently that a women's breast milk is specific for her child. Pretty cool stuff.

[Shortandy]

Faith is a requirement in evolution because there is no proof that a monkey became a human. I put it that way since some of you hold to an understanding that "species" is an ambiguous word. The transitional forms are not found and no scientist has observed one animal turning into another one. Is there evidence that change happens within a species? Yes there is. However macro-evolution is not proof in micro-evolution.

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion. You have faith that science is correct. Once we get over this hurdle we can discuss other things.

[Shortandy]

Originally Posted by Victor

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. I read an article recently that a women's breast milk is specific for her child. Pretty cool stuff.

I went to a breast-feeding class with a friend of mine. I learned that donkey milk is actually closer to human milk than any other. I found that to be most interesting to say the least.

[angellous_evangellous]

It's unfortunate and counterproductive for people of faith to equate a scientific presupposition of naturalism with any type of theological construct.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Shortandy

Faith is a requirement in evolution because there is no proof that a monkey became a human. I put it that way since some of you hold to an understanding that "species" is an ambiguous word. The transitional forms are not found and no scientist has observed one animal turning into another one. Is there evidence that change happens within a species? Yes there is. However macro-evolution is not proof in micro-evolution.

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion. You have faith that science is correct. Once we get over this hurdle we can discuss other things.

It would be more constructive if the person pretending to guide the conversation had even a basic knowledge of either science or (any) faith/religion.

[Draka]

Originally Posted by Shortandy

Faith is a requirement in evolution because there is no proof that a monkey became a human. I put it that way since some of you hold to an understanding that "species" is an ambiguous word. The transitional forms are not found and no scientist has observed one animal turning into another one. Is there evidence that change happens within a species? Yes there is. However macro-evolution is not proof in micro-evolution.

If there is no conrete proof then an element of faith is required. The evolutionist must also have faith in the theory becuse they base their life on it. Their whole systematic views of morality and ethics come from their faith that evolution is completely right for if it is not then something will have to change. I believe that is why many of you are reluctant to say it involves faith, because of the implications of that statement. But logically you must come to that conclusion. You have faith that science is correct. Once we get over this hurdle we can discuss other things.

You did not even look at the links I provided obviously. As you are so obviously unwilling to see the proof, I submit that you are the one with a faith issue. Your faith in your belief that evolution is false and unproven is so great that you are unwilling to even look at any proof.

And...what do you mean by saying that people who recognize evolution as fact base all their ethics and morals on it? How on this green Earth do you base ethics and morals on a proven scientific theory? You might as well say that people are basing their morals on gravity. That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

You also don't seem to differentiate between different classifications of "faith" do you? Having faith that there is a great supernatural creator god that plunked a man and woman into a garden is an entirely different type of faith than my saying that I have faith that my hubby will come home from work around 7pm tonight. I have faith in my ability to read and comprehend scientific studies. I have faith that those conducting the research have been to college like me and are educated. You have faith that you know how to type well enough to post on a forum like this. You have faith, no matter how ill-placed, that you are right on this subject.

There are different kinds of faith. And to equate the severity of faith it takes to believe in God and miracles and Creation to the faith in myself to be intelligent enough to understand scientific writings and the faith I have in others to write them honestly is quite the slap in the face to both sides of the equation.

To believe in evolution is not a "leap of faith". It is recognizing reality and fact.