Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?

[DavidFirth]

Of course not.
But then, we all know that that will never happen.
You have all but flat out admitted that you cannot be convinced you are wrong.

And you have yet to prove the Bible is wrong. So, like I said before, your attempts to convince me without proof have failed. Have a good day.

 

[DavidFirth]

Bold empty claim.

Prove it. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's yet another one of your big stack of assumptions.

 

[McBell]

And you have yet to prove the Bible is wrong. So, like I said before, your attempts to convince me without proof have failed. Have a good day.

Jeez.

You move the goal posts with every post.
How do you keep track of all that nonsense?

 

[McBell]

Prove it. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's yet another one of your big stack of assumptions.

ROTFLMAO

 

[DavidFirth]

I will leave you to your discussion of your theory. If you find proof, PM me. Otherwise, have a good day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Opinion noted.

Not a meaningful coherent response. Science is not based on opinions. If people build skyscrapers based on opinions they will fall down.

 

[Faithofchristian]

. . . and many variations in between over the millennia.

The one group which will say that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Based on mythology.



Christians who reasonable acknowledge the objective verifiable evidence of science. Unfortunately many only conditional acknowledge science and accept only certain aspects of science.

So there are two groups of Christians.



The more reasonable rational Christians not stoically devoted to blind faith and mythology.



In a previous post some one proposed 'blind faith' that favors literal scripture from 2 to 3 thousand years old rife with more ancient mythology, and with weak provenance over the objective verifiable evidence of science.[/QUOTE]

If I may also say, As long as those paleontologist scientist are found in Accordance with what the Bible, God's will say.
And then Yes I will agree with the paleontologist scientist findings, of the Dinosaurs bones as being Millions of years old. The Bible,God's word also supports this, that the earth it's self is Millions of years old.

So yes I can agree with what you haved said, and the findings of the paleontologist and archaeologist haved found to be true.

I have no problem in Agreement with them.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not a meaningful coherent response. Science is not based on opinions. If people build skyscrapers based on opinions they will fall down.

If you have proof you can PM me. Have a good day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Those bones do not have a tag attached to them signed by God stating they are millions of years old. Even the theories concerning the dating methods themselves contain large margins of error. The Bible has zero margin for error. You may believe men rather than God but I will not.

Absolutely no, undocumented assertions. Modern dating methods do not contain large margins of error. In fact the predictability of dating methods with geologic stratigraphy have become remarkably accurate. Creationists often criticize Carbon 14 dating, but this dating is not used in earth history beyond ~40,000-50,000 years. It has been successful in confirming a great deal of dating Biblical historical events, because of the arid conditions.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you have proof you can PM me. Have a good day.

What is the proof of your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Faithofchristian]

Those bones do not have a tag attached to them signed by God stating they are millions of years old. Even the theories concerning the dating methods themselves contain large margins of error. The Bible has zero margin for error. You may believe men rather than God but I will not.

Your to funny, you go to church and set there listening to your Pastor, Preacher, but yet you say you don't listen to man.

But yet that Pastor,Preacher, if I am not wrong is a man, that you listen to.

The only reason you refute the Carbon dating, is because it does not line up to what you haved been taught by man's teachings.

Whether you like it or not, God's word does in fact support paleontologist scientist and archaeologist scientist findings.

 

[DavidFirth]

What is the proof of your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

When did I say that I could prove them? I cannot prove the Spiritual with physics or science or mathematics. The Spirit is spirit and the flesh is flesh. You listen to your flesh and I will listen to the Spirit. We will see which is correct in the end.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Absolutely no, undocumented assertions. Modern dating methods do not contain large margins of error. In fact the predictability of dating methods with geologic stratigraphy have become remarkably accurate. Creationists often criticize Carbon 14 dating, but this dating is not used in earth history beyond ~40,000-50,000 years. It has been successful in confirming a great deal of dating Biblical historical events, because of the arid conditions.

If I may say again, your absolutely positively Right.about what your saying is Right. Thank you

 

[DavidFirth]

Your to funny, you go to church and set there listening to your Pastor, Preacher, but yet you say you don't listen to man.

But yet that Pastor,Preacher, if I am not wrong is a man, that you listen to.

The only reason you refute the Carbon dating, is because it does not line up to what you haved been taught by man's teachings.

Whether you like it or not, God's word does in fact support paleontologist scientist and archaeologist scientist findings.

Like I said, when you can prove it, PM me.

You are a Christian yet you do not understand spiritual things. I will pray that God will make the truth known to you in His time, His way.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Like I said, when you can prove it, PM me.

You are a Christian yet you do not understand spiritual things. I will pray that God will make the truth known to you in His time, His way.

So now you claim to know Spiritual things.

Ok, let's see if you can give Spiritual discernment in this.
In the book of John 20:11-12, As Mary stoop down and look inside the tomb, she saw two angels setting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had laid.

So now can you tell, what are the two angels revealing in the way that their setting.
Let's see if your answer will line up According to the bible, God's word will say.

Can you explain in the book of
Revelation 9:3 As to who are the Locust army is. who are they?

Now you claim to have Spiritual discernment so explain.

 

[McBell]

I will pray that God will make the truth known to you in His time, His way.

Good idea.
Cause you completely failed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Prove it. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's yet another one of your big stack of assumptions.

If a man is swallowed by a large fish, he will not live (the ones that could actually eat/swallow a person have teeth, and no oxygen to breath in their stomachs, which are also filled with digestive acids). There are no places to stand that allow you to see the entire Earth. Pi is not equal to 3. The different languages of the world did not come from the same place and time in ancient Babylon. Though there is plenty of evidence of severe regional flooding where flood myths are found, there is no evidence that any of these floods were global. Also, human parthenogenesis is not a possibility.

 

[David T]

if we allow that one pollack logic structure is different from another pollack structure then the answer is yes. Now pollack himself Said all of his logic structures were shiatsu no matter what, and in regards to logic structures in general I would agree. Especially when they become overly abstactive creations of deep complexity.

A common enough criticism of various scientific explanations (especially the theory of evolution) is that it requires "as much or more faith" to accept them as it does to believe in a scriptural-based alternative to them (such as creationism).

This criticism is usually levied by Christians, and while "faith" in Christianity can mean more than one thing, it seems to me that the Christians who employ this particular criticism of the sciences generally tend to mean by "faith" "a staunchly held belief or trust in something in the absence of conclusive evidence for it". Hence, the notion that scientific explanations require as much or more faith to accept as religious explanations seems to boil down to a charge that scientific explanations require a staunchly held belief or trust in something in the absence of conclusive evidence for it.

As I see it, the problem with the criticism is at least three-fold. First, it utterly ignores the fact that most scientists do not "staunchly" believe in a scientific explanation (such as evolution), but rather only tentatively accept it as currently the best available explanation, and would be willing to discard it should a better explanation come about. Contrast this with the ideal of Christian faith as unshakeable. So, to equate the alleged "faith" of scientists with the faith of Christians would seem to be a mistake.

Second, the criticism again utterly ignores the fact that widely accepted scientific explanations tend to have an overwhelming weight of reasoning and evidence in favor of them. Contrast this with the generally underwhelming evidence for Christian scriptural-based explanations. To say that scientists have a Christian like faith in scientific explanations would be like saying that scientists blindly base their acceptance of such explanations on some kind of authoritative scripture -- which they do not, and which would actually contradict the very epistemic foundations of the sciences if they did.

Last, some people like to argue that the sciences are based on scientific axioms which are equivalent to "things taken on faith". Yet, scientists would most likely discard or modify axioms that conflicted with experimental observations, but people who take things on faith tend to value doing so steadfastly, even in the face of conflicting reasoning and evidence. Hence, there seems to be a distinction between how scientific axioms and things taken on faith are treated by their respective communities.

For those, and for other reasons, the criticism of some Christians that scientific explanations require as much or more faith as religious explanations seems to me shallow and simplistic.


Your thoughts?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Good idea.
Cause you completely failed.

You got that right

 

[sayak83]

Not to my satisfaction, it hasn't. You still have yet to prove you're right and I'm wrong.

I have shown that science uses evidence and predictive success of evolutionary theory to conclude that evolution is true.. just like any other field of study. Thus I have demonstrated that your claim that the scientific conclusion about the truthfulness of evolution is based on faith and assumption is false.