a basis for morality

[Samadhi23]

Rumblestiltskin

Yeah, I can see where that would appear to be a contradiction. I'm talking about colloquial definitions being used as equivocations for a specific context. Colloquially, if someone said something like "I have faith in humanity" instead of "trust in humanity"...it's whatever. But we're talking in a religion vs. science context...it's the same idea of how creationists like to misuse the word "theory," equivocating the colloquial definition with the scientific definition. So when we're talking religiously, when it comes to faith and the way people use it, it means "belief in something without evidence."

I hope that cleared that up a bit.

That definitely cleared up the seeming contradiction; yes.

[Sugarbeary]

Deflesh

"Science is a matter of faith"

Already wrong.

Six words in.

evidence?

[Deflesh]

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

"Science is a matter of faith"

Already wrong.

Six words in.

evidence?

Science does not require faith to function.

"Science changes it's views based on what is observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

"Science is a matter of faith"

Already wrong.

Six words in.

evidence?

Yes. Evidence is precisely why science doesn't require faith. It'd still be true whether you believed it or not. Glad to see you're catching up. /sarcasm

[Sugarbeary]

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

"Science is a matter of faith"

Already wrong.

Six words in.

evidence?

Yes. Evidence is precisely why science doesn't require faith. It'd still be true whether you believed it or not. Glad to see you're catching up. /sarcasm

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course. As nothing has been observed, and science requires the scientific method, nothing has been scientifically proven.

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise. Until we observe otherwise, it is by faith that you accept the theory.

[Deflesh]

LoveLoud837

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course. As nothing has been observed, and science requires the scientific method, nothing has been scientifically proven.

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise. Until we observe otherwise, it is by faith that you accept the theory.

No words.

I have no words for the sheer amount of copy pasted stupidity you've posted.

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course.

Actually, I was talking about all serious sciences...however, evolution would fall under that category, so yeah, sure, we'll talk about it, just so you can add another piece to the pile of "s**t mluck doesn't know about, but runs his mouth about anyway."

Quote:

As nothing has been observed,

It has, actually. Several times. In fruit flies. In ring species. In wolves. Stating that it hasn't been observed doesn't mean it hasn't been observed...especially when we ******** have.

Quote:

and science requires the scientific method,

The "observation" listed in the scientific method and the equivocation creationists try to do with the colloquial meaning are pretty different. When the scientific method mentions "observation," it's talking about observing something we can't explain yet. For this case, that would be biodiversity...or, to simplify it since I imagine I'll have to use small words for you, the various amounts of different forms of life on our planet. "Observation" isn't the "you have to see it yourself" bullshit creationists try to use...

Quote:

nothing has been scientifically proven.

No...it has...and asserting that it hasn't doesn't make the mountain of evidence that it has disappear...

Quote:

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise.

Which is fine...because evolution doesn't say they wouldn't still be those things. In fact, if those animals became anything else, like say a cat turning into a bird, that would disprove evolution immediately. Do yourself a favor, stop browsing what creationists say evolution is, and do some ACTUAL ******** study on the subject.

Quote:

Until we observe otherwise,

You mean, until we prove this bullshit magic hat "rabbit-turning-into-donkey" garbage that isn't what evolution says...then that would prove evolution? Nope. However, if your complaint is that there is no evidence for evolution, then you just haven't searched hard enough, or you're just completely dismissing the evidence because your little book of nonsense is so gosh darn precious to you that you can't possibly stand the fact that it's wrong...

Quote:

it is by faith that you accept the theory.

Nope...not at all. There is a vast amount of evidence, so no faith is required. In fact, the great thing about the truth...it'll still be the truth regardless if anyone believes it or not.

[Sugarbeary]

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

Quote:

As nothing has been observed,

It has, actually. Several times. In fruit flies. In ring species. In wolves. Stating that it hasn't been observed doesn't mean it hasn't been observed...especially when we ******** have.

provide links please

[Sugarbeary]

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course. As nothing has been observed, and science requires the scientific method, nothing has been scientifically proven.

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise. Until we observe otherwise, it is by faith that you accept the theory.

No words.

I have no words for the sheer amount of copy pasted stupidity you've posted.

Except it wasn't?

[Deflesh]

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course. As nothing has been observed, and science requires the scientific method, nothing has been scientifically proven.

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise. Until we observe otherwise, it is by faith that you accept the theory.

No words.

I have no words for the sheer amount of copy pasted stupidity you've posted.

Except it wasn't?

Perhaps not word for word, but I've seen your terrible argument thousands of times on the internet.

It holds no bearing.

[Sugarbeary]

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course. As nothing has been observed, and science requires the scientific method, nothing has been scientifically proven.

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise. Until we observe otherwise, it is by faith that you accept the theory.

No words.

I have no words for the sheer amount of copy pasted stupidity you've posted.

Except it wasn't?

Perhaps not word for word, but I've seen your terrible argument thousands of times on the internet.

It holds no bearing.

I believe it does. why do you say it doesnt?

[Deflesh]

LoveLoud837

I believe it does. why do you say it doesnt?

You're displaying a complete misunderstanding of the terms of the scientific method. If we can't even agree on that, we have a long way to go to reach an educated understanding.

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

provide links please

Ignoring the fact that I provided a link that shows evidence for speciation, I'll go ahead an oblige you...and then wait on baited breath for your response either bitching about the source and/or dismissing it outright because it isn't what you want to believe....

Here's a pretty long link that talks about the fruit fly experiment in great detail. It's 5.3.

Here's information on ring species...and before you start bitching about "omg, it's wikipedia"...remember that, at the bottom of a wikipedia page, there's this section...labeled references...it's where you can verify the information ON the page...

And I misspoke earlier, since it's been awhile since I've had someone pull this creationist nonsense...it wasn't wolves, it was foxes.

In fact, on that first link (the talk origins one), I recommend you go looking through there...pick out any argument and objection you have against evolution, and look it up on the site. I'm fairly certain they've covered most of it...

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

Evidence in this instance pertains to evolution, of course. As nothing has been observed, and science requires the scientific method, nothing has been scientifically proven.

Mendel's experiments showed that flowers stay flowers, Galapogos finches are finches, the galopogos tortoise is a tortoise. Until we observe otherwise, it is by faith that you accept the theory.

No words.

I have no words for the sheer amount of copy pasted stupidity you've posted.

Except it wasn't?

Perhaps not word for word, but I've seen your terrible argument thousands of times on the internet.

It holds no bearing.

I believe it does. why do you say it doesnt?

Because you have a staggeringly ignorant view of what evolution ACTUALLY is....