Evidence of faith in atheists and evolutionist.

1. 81

   aka-djposted 4 years ago

   Irrefutable proof of faith in the said group(s) comes by way of abiogenesis.
   
   In 100% of cases we only ever see life come from life! Note, it's 100%, not 99.9, 99.99. or 99.999...9%. This is irrefutably affirmed by 100% of observation and experimentation.
   YET, when it come to the origin of the very first life form, we get it (miraculously) from "goo".
   
   The answer, 100% of the time (in my experience) has been "we don't know how it happened, but we know it happened". Usually with "no God necessary", tagged on the end.
   
   To say, "we don't know how it happened, but it happened" is admitting that they take it by faith. There are NO experiments, nor observable events that can be drawn upon to demonstrate the claim, therefore it's a philosophical claim, and faith based.

   replyreport
   1. 98

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So "we don't know how it happened" equates with "an invisible god did it".  A statement of ignorance requires the same faith as a statement that an unknown, unseen, undetectable creature from another universe exists and made us.
      
      I don't think so...

      replyreport
      1. 81

         aka-djposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         You made the equation, not me.
         
         So, you agree it's a faith claim! Thanks for that.

         replyreport
         1. 98

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Do you understand what you wrote in the OP?

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am not one to generally participate in the evolution/faith discussion, but you are mistaken in your conclusion.  It happened.  Period.  That is irrefutable since, well, life is here in all its myriad forms.  Saying it happened requires ZERO faith.  Saying you don't know how also requires ZERO faith.  The only thing that requires any faith is to say that this is HOW it happened, but not to be able to prove that.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         aka-djposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         That still leaves it open ended, and either group has equal claim to the possibility of the HOW.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            "I don't know."
            
            Completely unambiguous statement.  An acceptance of the ignorance of HOW.
            
            "I don't know, but..."
            
            Prove your but is the correct HOW or admit that you have an ungrounded faith in something that isn't provable.
            
            There is nothing in saying I don't know that requires a modicum of any kind of faith.

            replyreport
         2. 95

            Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Don't delude yourself. "Goddunnit" isn't even on the table for discussion on the origins of life.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               aka-djposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I know. You guys threw Him out some time ago.
               Good night all.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  And not a moment too soon. Good men like Copernicus and Sir Isaac Newton were too limited by that garbage.

                  replyreport
         3. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I don't really mind those who tell a Creation story. It is their choice.
            
            When it comes to evolution - I think it's important to keep it in perspective. It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. The TOE changes - the story and the science behind it are subject to change when new discoveries give us more information. DNA and genetic aspects have been added in the last 50 years and mutation theories are refined as we learn more from fossil history.
            
            No one has "faith" in the TOE, they just accept it as the "current" scientific thought, which it is.
            
            Can the story of Creation likewise change when society recognizes certain aspects that are pretty unbelievable? That's always been the problem.
            
            Religion is dropping away in the face of education. The Bible and Torah were never meant for a society that has grown beyond their pages in understanding. At least not the historical parts. The spiritual message of the New Testament still holds a special place for many - and I see nothing wrong with that. We are all where we are.
            
            My not believing the Creation story does not affect your belief - does it? It does not threaten you, does it?
            
            Perhaps you can find a way to combine today's science with your faith?

            replyreport
      2. 98

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         +1
         
         I don't understand why that seems so difficult to understand.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            aka-djposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Read above.

            replyreport
            1. 98

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               "...either group has equal claim to the possibility of the HOW."
               
               Not so - you made it clear one says "I don't know" while the other says "my godunnit".

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  aka-djposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  That may be MY best answer, but someone is free to answer "aliens did it", so you have limited the options yourself.
                  
                  I indeed do, as you accuse. It was never a question to me.
                  
                  Anyway, I started into too many discussions now. It's bedtime!

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I think it's the difference between a mind that inquires through science and one that doesn't.  Science provides all kinds of "how" answers for me and a quadrillion others.  It doesn't provide any "why" answers.  The average person may not care why.  They're content with "I don't know." Others are way more concerned with why.
            
            It's why the two poles of science and religion can never truly be reconciled into a single answer for anyone.  IMO, anyway, which, because I won't throw down with those who disagree is never really worth much here. 

            replyreport
   3. 74

      Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If you want to define beliefs about the past based on evidence as faith, sure. But it means we all have faith when it comes to believing anything we were not alive to see.  Some of us based on more reliable evidence than others. Some of us incorrectly.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We know it happened because we are here we even know when it happened, so no faith involved. We may not have the how yet (there have been experiments) but we admit that and look for an answer rather than inventing an answer that makes us feel warm and fuzzy.

      replyreport
   5. 78

      AshtonFireflyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Saying that something did indeed happen by no means indicates that one has faith in something. They did not say that it spontaneously grew. They offered no explanation. Saying that it happened was the observation. Saying that they had a theory for how it happened, even though they had no evidence of it, would be faith without evidence. They said "I don't know." That's it. Whereas Christian faith says "I know all." This thing happened because God made it that way. HUGE difference.

      replyreport