Says who?
You?
No dictionary or encyclopaedia makes that distinction.
It still describes science. Evidence is not proof. Real proof is infallible. Evidence just suggests things. The only things provable in the world are relations of ideas (not even the ideas themselves). That's why math has proofs, while science has confidence intervals. That's not a huge thing when going about regular life, but it's kind of a big distinction when having an epistemlogical argument with someone.
An argument from ignorance fallacy then.
Respectfully, as long as you are comfortable believing in a theory without any evidence, I guess that is your prerogative.
Such a theory still has the infinite regression problem. At some point, there must be an unsentient cause, if you want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion.
belief is acceptance that a statement is true
faith is belief that is not based on proof
I said nothing about logic. Is this just going to be a thing in our future exchanges?
Oh, you are running from it now, because you know you are wrong.
That is okay.
I can easily say I have faith in science, to a degree.
Because I am accepting someone else' word for it that science has evidence, even though I have no evidence of my own.
Own it, you have faith in something, and in this instance it just happens to be science.
You could easily say you have faith in motherhood even though you do not have evidence of it in hand.
Let's try this:
Faith can be distinguished from earned trust.
Science has earned my trust because it tests theories, makes predictions about evidence, and can explain available evidence. These explanations are then subjected to review, and test results are ideally reproducible for verification.
It does not take faith to trust a process that you can discover and do for yourself.
Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe something.
I totally agree, is there anything you do know about?
no. i'm not running. avante asserted that the theory of gravity has since become the law of gravity. he does not have an understanding of science. newton's laws of gravity exist, and have existed since newton first published them. his laws of gravity are expressed with formulas and equations. the theory of gravity is a different en y which is an attempted explanation of the phenomenon of gravity
Then ya look at how many times science got it wrong and what's left?
Exactly, I agree.
Thus you have faith.
Why?
Because you do not have any proof.
Pay close attention: the person know as spurraider has faith, simply because he does not have any proof, yet still believes even without that proof in his possession, that something else is true.
The person
You're just being dishonest now. I have already shown that I have at least a basic understanding on evolution.
please, enlighten me as to your scientific educational history... high school physics?
what proof or evidence are you referring to?
no, you haven't. "how did a fish become an ape" or "lol when did a chimp become a human" or any sort of "when did x become y LOL" while spamming pictures is not demonstrating an understanding of evolution
Here is a scientific fact proven false:
Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.
Then explain atavisms without evolution.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-08-2014 at 05:24 PM. Reason: grammar
tf outa here. successful mutations, no purpose, random, blah blah blah.
We can obviously agree to disagree. I do think it makes sense to take what one thinks to be the most reasonable stance on a question and look for a reason reject that stance. I don't see it as merely saying, "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't." I see it as more, "I believe god most likely exists because I find it to be the most reasonable explanation for the following reasons, but I am willing to amend that view if a better explanation comes along." I'd rather it be characterized as a "God of Gaps," argument than an "Argument From Ignorance", although I disagree with both evaluations.
which fact was proven false? nowhere did they claim the static universe was fact
I don't think you, spurraider, has any proof whatsoever, thus you are relying on your faith that someone somewhere out there does have the proof or evidence, however you yourself do not.
I had that and a couple classes at COS. I came away thinking that if science has it already all figured out then why do we still have sientists?
Trust me 100 years from now a lot of what science says today will be inaccurate just like it was 100 years ago.
do you understand that it doesn't go something like fish-fish-fish-fish-fish-lizard-lizard-lizard-mouse-mouse-mouse-mouse-small monkey-small monkey-small monkey-chimp-chimp-chimp-chimp-human-human, etc...
there is no "generation x" where suddenly you get new species. at least not according to the theory of evolution
specifically. what don't i have proof or evidence in?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote