Empirical Evidence takes the place of faith in science. If you really really wanted to you could call that a sort of faith. I have seen examples-- hence--""a faith “that certain principles or certain bodies of knowledge are in fact true.” ""

Yet his argument is inclusive and science does not have the same sort of faith religion does. Religion has "blind" faith whereas science has faith in tried and true methodology.

I didn't know that things had to function in a certain way to actually work.

I mean, AA functions around faith. And it works, doesn't it?

AA??

Find any lab scientist doing any kind of continuous work, they rely HEAVILY on faith.....and grants.

Alcoholics Anonymous.

Ahhh... The twelve step program. Where people give up alcohol to smoke and drink lots of caffiene. It has a 50-75% chance of working.

I have no problems as I have stated many times before with people utilizing something if it works for them. If faith and god work for you good job. Just do not consider it a working solution for me. My problem lies with the fact that just because I do not believe in god every damn christian thinks I am going to hell. And I say the same thing I have always said to them. SCREW YOU!!!!

if you do not believe I am going to hell good for you.

I don't think you're going to hell.

But you not liking what other people have to say is not an automatic reason why they're wrong.

I disagree with what you might have to say. I never said I do not like it. And sometimes you irritate the holy fucking hell out of me because you have what I like to label "Circular" logic which glides around points and yet never really establishes one.

You never let me.

You often seem far too involved in making one look like an idiot before presenting your point. If you have a point get to it and stop the beating around the bush.

If you would ever let me speak without putting words in my mouth, arguing with points I'm not making, arguing unreasonably with points I am making and trying to make me look like a fool, you know, maybe I would be able to make my points.

Well. I must concur that we both feel the same than. You think I make you out to be a fool and I think you are doing that to me. So we at least agree on something.

I will tell you what. I will attempt a bit more patience with your statements and arguments if you agree to cut to the chase and just forward your point without all the doggeral.

But the doggeral makes it fun!



Oh... all right.

If either of you say "huggles", I'll kill both of you though.

heh.

**huggles**

Please make it quick.

i appreciate the enlightening posts guys. that's not sarcasm, just seriously, thank you. i've always known the chart of the evolution of man and just never focused on that fact, the fact that we supposedly share an ancestor but are not in the same lineage.. but whatever.
i'd have to agree, especially considering penguings on the komodo islands, that adaptation isn't something worth arguing against.
macro-evolution is a lot harder to swallow though. but hey here's the real kicker. why does it matter?
huh?
both sides are relying on faith in something that cannot be proven to a third party. one in God, one in "empirical evidence" or whatever you might call it. the only scientifically proven things are the things that were disproven, and even that's questionable. ha.
everyone posting here knows one thing. this thread will fade from lack of interest, not because any one side won.

with that said, enjoy.

I would be hard put to disagree with you. Just remember the difference between Religious Faith and Scientific "Faith". I hate calling it faith however since it always gets misinterpreted as this thread has proven.

... empirical evidence can be proven to a third party though, that's what empirical means.

Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience;
depending upon the observation of phenomena, (or more simplistically, provable).