Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the
superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting
IMMENSE FAITH.
Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
No I'm not.
It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.
Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
Sorry about your retarded luck.
It is a FACT that I may have been dropped off on earth by aliens and I could have been raised by wolves before I might have grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I could have been educated at Harvard before I may have taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what could have been the Australian Outback.
Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
Hollie, you might be totally ignorant to the game we play but I am not. If I'm a Creationist, you are a Darwinist. YOU really have brought it to that childishly foolish level.
