Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2014, 05:44 PM
Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
So, replying to a Facebook post to 3 different creationist responses about evolution, I have been trying to explain the difference between faith, science, evolution, and theories and laws. Here are the creationist arguments I was dealing with, and my responses:

Creationist: "Funny thing is both sides require faith. Both sides have a spot that when it gets to a point it's a. Well it just happened. And if ask how you get. It just did. Sounds like faith to me."

My response: "No, science is not based on faith, it is based on evidence. Science doesn't make things up and call it fact - that's what religion does. Faith is believing in something without evidence. When science has not yet discovered an answer to a question, then it says "We don't know the answer to that yet, but let's try to find out." Religion makes assumptions without evidence and then says "I have come up with an answer and you haven't, so I'm automatically right!" Sorry, but a bullshit answer is still bullshit. You don't get to make up whatever you want and call it truth, and just because you were indoctrinated to believe in something doesn't make it true."


Creationist: "Unless you're a scientist and have personally recreated every experiment that has ever been done, you have only faith in that science being accurate."

My response: "I don't need to be a scientist to see that it works or makes sense. I see evidence for evolution. I don't see evidence for an invisible man in the sky, and I definitely don't see why, out of the countless gods that man has come up with, that I should believe in any god over another. If science is merely based on faith, and your god is real, then why don't you religious people just reject medical treatment from scientific findings and use prayer to heal yourselves instead of going to a doctor or hospital and see how that works? You claim both are equally credible, and that your god is all-powerful, and sees and knows everything, so why not do it that way? You want to take advantage of the advances made by science and claim that it has no more credibility than religion at the same time. You can't have it both ways, because that's completely hypocritical."

Creationist: "Except in order to have evidence or scientific facts, you have to have measurable data, observable data...evolution has neither, no one witness evolution, which is why it is a theory & not a law..."

My response: "You need to look up what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is something that is backed up by evidence. You are referring to a hypothesis and saying it is the same as a theory, which is a lie. Instead of me writing an extremely long explanation on here, this will help you with all of the ridiculous arguments that creationists constantly use when debating scientific facts: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...eationist/ ."


How do you deal with responding to people when this shit comes up? I can't not respond to their stupid comments, because then it looks like I had no valid response and they won. I'm just trying to find a way to put things in a nutshell without having to write tons of posts. I grew tired of it, so I just posted the link, but I would most prefer to give shorter, more concise answers if possible. Do you have a better tactic to give shorter answers that get right to the point, or do you think my responses were short enough?

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
Not to be flippant, but those are the people that get removed from my friend list.

You have as much chance of changing their minds as you have of facing the wall in your house and talking the paint color into changing.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
18-07-2014, 06:16 PM
RE: Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
(18-07-2014 05:46 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Not to be flippant, but those are the people that get removed from my friend list.

You have as much chance of changing their minds as you have of facing the wall in your house and talking the paint color into changing.

It was comments on an article from a political page. I find it's easier to comment on those pages with political stuff than constantly putting it as my status. I find people that constantly post their religious crap on their statuses to be incredibly annoying, and I don't want to turn around and act the same way with my own non-religious beliefs.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2014, 12:58 AM
RE: Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
Those kinds of people are trolls and I do understand the need to correct them on the bullshit they spew, but you might keep your sanity longer by avoiding those places.

If you can't help avoiding them, then I would write up or favorite some links that you can post as canned responses.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2014, 02:04 AM
RE: Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
I generally stay away from such discussions because I recognize when it's futile. A person entrenched in their beliefs is an immoveable object. However, when someone is open-minded, I simply link them to this page:

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/defi...tific-work
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
20-07-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories
I feel sad for them, truly. To go through life armed with superstition, lies, and hope for a transcendental reality that is a complete fabricated fairy tale as their means to comprehend the world around them puts them at such a distinct disadvantage.

I can dismantle them like a stack of dominoes and do so daily, but sometimes I get tired of explaining the same things over and over and over.

In my evolution class, one of the more combative creationists who at one point in class stated, "I don't care what evidence they claim to have, the only evidence I need is the bible, and nothing is going to change my opinion on that"..... Facepalm

So here is our latest rounds, my replies in bold, the subject was 'present an online source that supports homology, and a source that counters it, explain and cite your references.' I will remove this dipshits name for privacy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionists argue against creationism because it is faith-based rather than fact-based. However, they (scientists) do not have empirical evidence that supports their theory. They want us to believe in their explanation but cannot produce unequivocal proof. Essentially, we should have blind faith in their hypothesis and accept their reasoning without question. It seems to me they pivot their account each time there is a new revolutionary finding or popular consensus. Let us not forget misclassifications of the past i.e., whales (as fish) and bats (as birds) when resemblances was the basis of categorization. Evolutionists take the spotlight off themselves and their inability to prove their theory and attack the faith of those who subscribe to creationism – a story that has been constant.

Respectfully,

B#####

B#####,

Evolutionists have no reason to argue against faith. One studies physical evidence in the real world, the other believes in an intangible fabricated transcendental world. The two are not even in the same discussion. 2+2 isn't jesus, it is 4. You can't put a fabricated faith answer to a real world problem. There is no need for blind faith in understanding empirical evidence presented, just the education and intelligence to be able to comprehend it, no faith required. Faith is required when you posit an anthropocentric based belief system on a fictional book that was fabricated and assimilated by Emperor Constantine as the official religion of the roman empire in 325 CE.

Science is a constant evolving thing because we are learning more each day, whereas creationism is based on belief of the first causal argument and a long debunked book made up of recycled older greek myths (OT) and pseudepigrapha, allegorical writings and outright parables (NT) meant to state a message, but taken literally by millions of folks uneducated in its creation. I highly recommend taking theology classes, I have taken many, and when you take them, like the christian spirituality vision course here at saint leo, you will learn how the book was fabricated, who actually wrote the stories and how it is all based on community writings based on allegorical stories with zero evidence. Thus if the creationism belief is based on a book filled with fairy tale stories and allegorical writings under pseudo-author names...it lacks any credibility, especially in a scientific discussion. We may as well posit goldlilocks and spongebob's musings as evidence to counter evolution.

Evolution is proven.

The creationism story by the way has not been constant. The story has been modified MANY times over the years, which is why there are so many versions of the bible. The fact that millions of people believe it does not give it credence. Millions of people think Muhammad was the prophet, and are okay with the fact he married a 6 yo girl and consummated that marriage when she was 8 yo. That doesn't make it right, or true. Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

This is a science class, we need to look at evidence and consider it for its validity, not posit fairy tales as explanation to anything. THAT would be appropriate in a philosophy or theology class...in my humble opinion. I am in no way disrespecting your personal beliefs. You can believe whatever you wish, but various religious beliefs have no place in science discussions, even if they inconveniently disprove your favorite creation story. To put it into context, if I hold the belief that venus is hollow and full of little blue men, and these little blue men created man in a grand experiment inside their great sky cauldron, and thus THIS disproves evolution...I may have the right to hold this ridiculous belief, but it doesn't mean I can use it in a serious scientific discussion as evidence against evolution.

Respectfully

Eric


Eric,

It is my "humble opinion" that you are indeed disrespecting my beliefs. I respect your opinion that "evolution is proven" please do the same for me and don't patronize me. I know this is a science class, however, I do not have to believe everything I read. In case you forgot, you are enrolled in "Saint Leo University." Creationist and evolutionists can exist together without unnecessary, inflammatory commentary.

B#####

B######,

It was not my intent to disrespect your belief, nor did I, as pointing out facts isn't disrespect, and I can substantiate every statement I made at great length. My intent was to point out its invalidity in regards to the subject. It seems irrelevant to me to bring story time to a scientific discussion. That would be like me saying homology isn't a valid theory because goldilocks says so. That is neither a true or relevant posit in regards to our learning of the validity of homology. I would hope if I said something that far off base someone would point me in the right direction, as I did for you. In reference to you not having to believe everything you read, I could not have said that any better.....belief without research is blind...and is especially true of any "holy" books.

When someone posits false, unproven information as fact, and someone else points that out, that isn't inflammatory or unneccessary, that is correcting misinformation. I would hope in an academic atmosphere you could discern the difference. If I somehow trampled your toes in pointing out your claim that evolution is without evidence and requires faith to believe it is a false perspective, than I apologize. Good luck with the remainder of the class, research, think, ponder the evidence, take it as you wish.

Eric


----------------------------------------------------

sigh, you just can't fix stupid. They fail to realize that you can't posit faith as an answer to a science question. Apples and oranges. Drinking Beverage

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: