On 13/04/2011 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't think that's the case, honestly - they think that belief
> *supercedes*  proven knowledge, and that if one has faith, one doesn't
> need pesky scientific facts.  The belief seems to be that what has been
> revealed by God to them will be borne out by the facts once we have them
> all, and we just don't have all the facts yet.
>

I think you are correct.

> "Belief" is the antithesis of "knowledge" as far as I'm concerned.

I think it is "Faith" is the antithesis of "knowledge"

With faith you don't need knowledge.

BTW Mid June is the date ATM.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In that case they can F' off;-P
> LOL

That's what I meant in the first place.
Go forth and multiply. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 8:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> At best, as an incomplete history

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=missing+chapters+of+the+bible&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=a2d4d19bddca1d1b


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:12:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't think that's the case, honestly - they think that belief
>> *supercedes*  proven knowledge, and that if one has faith, one doesn't
>> need pesky scientific facts.  The belief seems to be that what has been
>> revealed by God to them will be borne out by the facts once we have
>> them all, and we just don't have all the facts yet.
>>
>>
> I think you are correct.
> 
>> "Belief" is the antithesis of "knowledge" as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I think it is "Faith" is the antithesis of "knowledge"
> 
> With faith you don't need knowledge.

Yeah, faith and belief are close in meaning, but not exactly synonyms.  
Belief is closer to knowledge than faith, I think that would be fair to 
say - for example, one can believe that (for example) the theory of 
evolution is the way life developed on Earth, but that belief could be 
based on knowledge that the people who have studied it and reached that 
conclusion followed good scientific principles.

It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.

> BTW Mid June is the date ATM.

Good to know, keep me posted. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:13:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> In that case they can F' off;-P
>> LOL
> 
> That's what I meant in the first place. Go forth and multiply. :-D

Nicely played. :P

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:17:58 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 8:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> At best, as an incomplete history
> 
> http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=missing
+chapters+of+the+bible&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=a2d4d19bddca1d1b

Yeah, I've heard of several of those missing chapters before. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:48:14 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/13 14:05, Warp a écrit :
>> Alain<aze### [at] qwertyorg>  wrote:
>>> I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find
>>> facts that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented
>>> them! If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist
>>> them until they fit.
>>
>>    You forgot the psychological projection, iow. projecting the flaws
>>    of
>> your dogma onto the scientific theory it contradicts. (For example,
>> "creationism is not science" becomes "evolution is not science", and
>> "creationism requires faith" becomes "evolution requires as much faith
>> as any religion, if not even more".)
>>
>>
> Sadly, it's absolutely true :(

Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to describe 
evolution.

The creationists have used "theory" to mean "hypothesis" when in 
scientific usage (such as in talking about the 'theory of evolution') it 
refers to a body of knowledge that is known to be scientifically 
validated.

Now either those creationists are uneducated as to the multiple 
definitions of the word 'theory' and which one actually applies when one 
talks about the 'theory of evolution' (hint, it's not the 'hypothesis of 
evolution' definition, which is what they push), or they are deliberately 
misusing the word so as to push their dogmatic approach to trying to make 
creationism seem like science.

Creationism is a hypothesis.  Evolution is scientific fact.  They do not 
merit equal consideration in a science classroom in school.

Of course, if they're willing to let science teachers come in and teach 
evolution as part of a Sunday School curriculum in church, that would be 
at least somewhat fair.  Let those who understand critical thinking 
skills teach kids some critical thinking skills - that would be a good 
thing.

But I'm sure the creationists wouldn't be in favour of that, because 
critical thinking skills undermine creationist dogma.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 12:35, nemesis wrote:
> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p

I'm pretty sure the mormons don't take Genesis as literal.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 14:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to describe
> evolution.

Nah. That's just an easy target. If it was the "facts" of evolution or the 
"law" of evolution, people still wouldn't believe it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> On 4/13/2011 12:35, nemesis wrote:
>> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p
> 
> I'm pretty sure the mormons don't take Genesis as literal.

well, whatever ancient egyptian/native american golden book they follow.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message