Does evolution take faith?

[Nilloc James]

I heard this,

"you use just as much faith to beleive in evolution"

Questions for debate;

Does it take faith to beleive evolution?

Does it take faith to beleive genisis?

Does it take faith to beleive intelligiant design?

Which takes the most faith?

[JoeyKnothead]

I would agree there is a certain amount of non-religious faith involved when one accepts the ToE. I would contend it has vast stores of evidence to support it; as opposed to the Genesis accounts of the Bible.

[Phyrex]

Faith to believe in evolution? Oh my..
There are only 2 mechanics at work:

Random mutations.(either harmful, useful or neutral)
& Natural selection. (useful mutations cause the organism to be a little bit better and therefore create more offspring and pass on those useful genes compared to harmful mutations in others)

Now assuming just those two things is not really all that much is it?

Also let me just point out that according to Theists there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

ANY theist, already accepts micro-evolution. Mistakes in the DNA copying process do occur. They can not deny this because we can observe it with our own eyes in experiments.
Macro-evolution is of course impossible to see with your own eyes since we're talking about billions or years here. So they deny THAT part.

Creationists argue that micro-evolution is seperate from macro-evolution. They say: "A dog has some genetic variation but will always stay a dog".

I hope by this point you realize the absurdity of saying "believing in evolution requires a leap of faith".

As for the ONLY difference between micro- and macro-evolution is:

"Given enough time, a lot of those small variations can eventually cause a big variation."

THATS IT. 1+1=2
One sentence to seperate real evolutionists and creationists.

[bernee51]

I heard this,

"you use just as much faith to beleive in evolution"

Questions for debate;

Does it take faith to beleive evolution?

Does it take faith to beleive genisis?

Does it take faith to beleive intelligiant design?

Which takes the most faith?

Use of the word 'faith' to describe a belief regarding evolution is an equivocation often used by theists to try to 'level the playing field'

[Mere_Christian]

I heard this,

"you use just as much faith to beleive in evolution"

Questions for debate;

Does it take faith to beleive evolution?

Does it take faith to beleive genisis?

Does it take faith to beleive intelligiant design?

Which takes the most faith?

Use of the word 'faith' to describe a belief regarding evolution is an equivocation often used by theists to try to 'level the playing field'

When do we get to the part where we see "what" started" everything?

So far no firm answer right? Lot's of theories abound (and good ones) but no standup declaration right?

[Mere_Christian]

Faith to believe in evolution? Oh my..
There are only 2 mechanics at work:

Random mutations.(either harmful, useful or neutral)
& Natural selection. (useful mutations cause the organism to be a little bit better and therefore create more offspring and pass on those useful genes compared to harmful mutations in others)

Now assuming just those two things is not really all that much is it?

Also let me just point out that according to Theists there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

ANY theist, already accepts micro-evolution. Mistakes in the DNA copying process do occur. They can not deny this because we can observe it with our own eyes in experiments.
Macro-evolution is of course impossible to see with your own eyes since we're talking about billions or years here. So they deny THAT part.

Creationists argue that micro-evolution is seperate from macro-evolution. They say: "A dog has some genetic variation but will always stay a dog".

I hope by this point you realize the absurdity of saying "believing in evolution requires a leap of faith".

As for the ONLY difference between micro- and macro-evolution is:

"Given enough time, a lot of those small variations can eventually cause a big variation."

THATS IT. 1+1=2
One sentence to seperate real evolutionists and creationists.

Painting with a broom?

Adaptation makes for a new model, but like Darwin's Finches, they are still birds. A Maserati is still just a great car.

THATS IT. 1+1=2

What's before the first 1?

Given "enough time" in a random process begun BY nothing? Things from nothing (and moved on by nothing) stay nothing. I mean isn't that provable?

Here's a cute angle, The Random Mutation Generator:

http://www.randommutation.com/

[Goat]

I heard this,

"you use just as much faith to beleive in evolution"

Questions for debate;

Does it take faith to beleive evolution?

Does it take faith to beleive genisis?

Does it take faith to beleive intelligiant design?

Which takes the most faith?

Use of the word 'faith' to describe a belief regarding evolution is an equivocation often used by theists to try to 'level the playing field'

When do we get to the part where we see "what" started" everything?

So far no firm answer right? Lot's of theories abound (and good ones) but no standup declaration right?

What is the evidence?? Right now, there isn't much. There is a big difference between 'I don't know', and 'There is no evidence so therefore God'.

You are also using the logical fallacy of equivocation, because the TOE doesn't care where 'everything' came from, it doesn't even care where life came from.

All the TOE addresses is how and why life changes over the generations.

[Furrowed Brow]

Q1: Does it take faith to believe evolution?
Faith has various different meanings. One is belief without proof. I dont think religious concepts fall under that definition. But if you mean does it takes belief without proof to believe in evolution then it also depends what is meant by proof. There is no proof of evolution in the mathematical sense. However there is shed loads of evidence, and the arguments that go along with evolution theory are cogent, parsimonious and elegant. It has reached the point we can treat it as fact without worrying about leaps of faith.

Q2: Does it take faith to believe genesis?
Creationism (YEC)is not cogent, parsimonious, elegant and has no supporting evidence and disregards the earth size body of evidence that contradicts it. To believe such a thing requires an unusual degree of something; some call this faith. I tend to see it as pathological obfuscation.

Creationism is a more general and softer sense than YEC is not testable nor falsifiable and thus meaningless. Belief without proof does not apply . Old earth creationism (OEC) cannot be tested or falsified, invokes undefined unknowns, and requires a metaphysics that rests on words and concepts that themselves cannot be tested or falsified, or even clearly defined. Thus OEC is meaningless. To believe in such a things requires accepting a meaningless model of creation as real. Living life as if your words have meaning when they dont takes something. Maybe if we defined faith a way of living as if some notion was the most meaningful notion of all, when in fact it is meaningless, then Id say yes. Creationism requires faith.

Q3:Does it take faith to believe intelligent design?
ID is an idea that is meaningless: it has no use, there is no evidence for it, and it cannot be tested. To believe such a thing while presenting it as scientific or meaningful requires intellectual legerdemain not faith.

Q4:Which takes the most faith?
How to measure faith? I think OEC (not ID) is the most honest.

Adaptation makes for a new model, but like Darwin's Finches, they are still birds. A Maserati is still just a great car.

Having just discussed this subject with Goose Ill bring it up here. Homo sapien, Neanderthals, homo erectus, homo habilis. Just variations of bipedal hominids? Homo sapien just a great homo? Or different species?

[Munchskreem]

Painting with a broom?

Adaptation makes for a new model, but like Darwin's Finches, they are still birds. A Maserati is still just a great car.

You're confusing macroevolution with microevolution, two very distinct things. You also seem to have no grasp of what speciation is.

What's before the first 1?

Given "enough time" in a random process begun BY nothing? Things from nothing (and moved on by nothing) stay nothing. I mean isn't that provable?

Here's a cute angle, The Random Mutation Generator:

http://www.randommutation.com/

That Random Mutation Generator is vastly oversimplified. I could pick every reason apart (and there appear to be more than a few), but I'll simply say that the idea that evolution works through mutation alone was discredited years ago. Here's a better program illustrating how evolution works:

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2005.php ... 710&ucat=8

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Does it take faith to beleive evolution?

Yes, you have to have a certain (very small) amount of faith to believe that the evidence and data we are getting regarding the fossil record and DNA is correct, and you also have to have a little bit of faith to ignore the occasional gaps in the theory that come about because of lack of information (e.g, incomplete areas of the fossil record). It does not take all that much faith though, just a little bit to reconcile the fact that, although evolution is the best theory we have, it is not flawless.

Does it take faith to beleive genisis?

Yes, a great deal.

Does it take faith to beleive intelligiant design?

It does, perhaps not as much as literal belief in Genesis, but it does.

Out of these, literal belief in Genesis takes the most faith.