Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that most people take it on faith that science is correct due to most people not being in any sort of position to verify and observe the scientific principles they devoutly believe in.
I'm not talking about scientific analysis itself, but rather the atheists who try to use scientific principles that they do not understand, to disprove religion and how their positions are entirely faith based as they are taking it in good faith that it is correct.
Professed Christians?, good point though.
The government rule and control the system of things and the people, are you saying that the people the government control are ""dumb folk"?.
A lot of them are. The rest are comfortable and just want to be left alone. I'm the latter.
And science as well, science is just knowledge. Isn't faith the assured expectations of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not yet beheld?, ha.
Perhaps not dumb but deceived?.
No I'm saying that in 7000BCE the folk who believed the bs and gave a percentage of their stuff to "priests" and allowed them to bite the end of their son's foreskins off and allowed their nan to be burned at the stake because a priest said so were dumber than the people who set up the system sorta like the suckers in a shell and pea game or the 3 card Monty.
But the validity of the scientific method is available for all to see through it's application.
A person may not be able to understand the technical aspects of a given field of science, but is able to see the real & tangible fruits of that domain.
I'm not qualified in biology or a doctor - but I do see the benefits of the medical profession & the science of medicine through the treatments available to me.
Don't get me wrong, not all people who reject the idea of a god are rational - neither are all people who lack a belief in a deity doing so for the right reasons (many reject god due to peer pressure, the same as many accept god for the same bad reasons) - but trust in a method which is proven to work through it's application isn't the same as blind faith in something in which no external verifiable evidence exists.
No. Dumb. America and Russia are great examples of 1st world societies keeping large swathes of their population poor and uneducated which breeds ignorance and hate. It's the same in the UK, but not on the same scale, though it is rising.
Millions of years?, is that a random number you pulled out the top hat?.
Dinosaurs are estimated to have roamed the earth for over 260 million years.
Proverbs 14:15 -
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.
Mattehw 15:14
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."
I agree with what others have spoken maybe not here but other places, for example someone or some persons wrote ..."it cannot be denied that many Christians are simply "Christian" for traditional reasons rather than due to an honest examination of facts.
"evolution requires its believers to have a blind faith, since it is founded solely upon unproven theories and conjecture, and since traditionally scientific empirical evidence does not back this theory".
Yeah, and i estimate God created those dinasaurs but perhaps not millions of years ago.
You don't understand evolution or the body of evidence which exists on the subject.
Just one example, if evolution was true - then the difference in chromosomes between apes (23 pairs = 46) & man (24 pairs 48) would need to be explained.
For us to have evolved it was determined that we would need to find a reason for this gap, which was successfully identified by the fusing of our chromosomes & the additional telomeres in the middle of the 2nd chromosome.
"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2"
Last edited:
That is a hell of a quote. It's wrong (unless you're just talking about the actual origin of the word?). But it got a laugh so well done.
Only you're hoping for metaphysical nonsense constrained by your own inherited dogma of which you have absolutely zero evidence and therefore reason to believe for a second is true. Which is why it's relegated to the faith pile which oddly enough doubles up as the delusion pile.
I don't think 'evident' or 'demonstration' mean what you think they mean.
edit - Actually having just read that you think believing evolution requires blind faith confirms that you really have zero concept of what evidence is.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 1,319
lol no
Evolution requires no faith it is directly observable in for instance populations of fruit flies either wild or in lab conditions or in bacteria, in fact this week I was reading about an "experiment" whereby 50,000 generations of bacteria have been observed and many evolutionary tracks have been taken.
Nope, at best the jury is still out on that.
There is strong evidence that suggests over 90% of the Bible, including Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, was written in Hebrew, with about 1% in Aramaic, and the rest in Greek.
Also drug/antibiotic resistant bacteria is visible evidence of modern day evolution of organisms right before our eyes.
I'm sorry but people who still deny the fact that is evolution are for me put in the same category as far-out conspiracy theory nutts! The amount of solid good evidence is overwhelming
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
inb4 "they are still flies and bacteria".
Oh dear, the estimations mentioned by myself were based upon scientific method and knowledge gained over a career yours is a statement to avoid conceding a point.