OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,12:26) | | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10) | The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.
If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting. |
no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.
'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based. Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.
Don't want to go there... |
The difference is, in all of recorded history, those people that have had 'faith' in science... have been fully justified in that faith.
Every bit of technology, every bit of knowledge that can be falsified, has come about through science.
Not a single bit (literally) of falsifiable knowledge has come from religion or creationism or intelligent design.
The creationists (as OM pointed out) have been saying that the demise of Darwinism is coming... and they have been saying it for over 100 years. Yet, evolutionary theory is stronger than ever.
Finally, it's not really faith. It's using the knowledge and skills given to us by science and taking it one step farther. It's called predicting and creationism, in it's 2000 year history has never successfully made a prediction. Science has.
I think we're fully justified in our 'faith' (for want of a better term in this context) in science.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
