Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

quote:

---

I've often shown just how underestimated the reality of faith plays in the lives of everyone, especially those who tend to view such a notion as being silly-hearted or fanciful. The reality is that everyone exhibits faith every single day of their lives without even realizing it, even the things they claim is known empirically by science.

---

Of couse what you refer to is not the same as the religious faith being discussed - the trust in unverifiable dogma without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. This equivocation on "faith" is a common creationist trick.

quote:

---

But you also have to consider that evo's have been the ones caught red-handed with numerous demonstrable frauds to further their own agenda-- an agenda of dethroning the notion of a Creator.

---

I doubt that you could name even ONE fraud where that was the agenda. And I doubt that you could come up with even half-a-dozen cases of genuine fraud. I suspect that your "numerous" frauds include many unsubstantiated allegations.

quote:

---

However, you might be less inclined to peg creationists with such offenses when its unquestionable that evo's have a far worse record of fraud to further their cause than creo's.

---

It certainly is questionable. I doubt that you could come up with even one case of a fraud in evolution where the main purpose was to "further the cause of evolution".

"Nebraska Man" wasn't fabricated -it was a mistake, not a fraud.Of the "Usual suspects":Haeckel's Embryos may have been a fraud - but if so it was to advance Haeckel's "biogenetic law", not evolution as such."Piltdown Man" may have been fabricated for the reason you suggest, but nobody really knows. Another popular idea is that it was fabricated to embarrass Dawson, but the hoaxer got cold feet and never sprung the trap."Archaeoraptor" was fabricated for financial gain.And that's about it for the "big" frauds (I'm sure that there are some minor ones, but they'd be even less significant).

I think that Faith is making a contribution - unintentionally. She's demonstrating the problem. She has made up her mind that the evidence must support the Flood and the fact that - excepting people with a strong religious belief in the Flood - the experts unaminously disagree - is just a sign that the experts are wrong. Even the fact that "Flood geology" can't explain the fossil record - or the fact that it can't even provide a way to identify rocks formed in the Flood other than assuming it - is ignored.That's no way to do science.

quote:

---

Paul's statements ARE objective fact. The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact. This is what you don't get. You guys just compartmentalize your facts and judge from sheer prejudice.

---

The issue at hand was whether the Flood story of the Bible was derived from the Gilgamesh epic. The Bible verse cited (2 Corinthians 10:5) does not speak directly to the subject at all. Any attempt to say otherwise would require considerable interpretation - hardl the stuff of objective fact..Secondly we do NOT know that the Bible is entirely accurate - in fact we know that it is not.So the prejudice is almost entirely on your part.It is your prejudice that claims that the "The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact"It is your prejudice that claims that we know this - we don't know anything of the sort.It is your prejudice that says that anyone who disagrees with you has to be prejudiced.It is your prejudice that assumed that the Bible verse actually spoke directly to the issue when it did not.The fact is that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Bible. The hypothesis that the Biblical account is derived from the older story is entirely natural. It is only prejudice which could deny it. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

I don't think that Faith is ignoring the Gilgamesh issue - just tackling it with the same anti-science anti-intellectual methodology she usually hands - "don't look at the facts, just assume I'm right". The most telling point is that she doesn't even bother to look up the Bible verse cited - she just wrongly assumes that it directly speaks to the issue. You'd think that she would actually know the Bible well enough to realise that that was unlikely (I certainly did) and actually look up the verse.

quote:

---

What's the difference? No one has seen a meteor impact the earth, yet they fervently believe that it has happened, can happen again, and visualize the destruction it can cause.

---

Evidence ! We have the impact craters. Indeed meteorites have been seen and people HAVE witnessed them impacting. More are seen on the way down and found after the event.

quote:

---

Archaeoraptor, the Law of Recapitulation, the false equine series, peppered moths, Piltdown Man, Ramipithecus, Nebraska Man, etc... These are deliberate cases of fraud to further their theory. I thought we are supposed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

---

This is off-topic but I will point out thatArcheoraptor was a fraud fabricated for financial gain. There is no evidence that the culprit was interested in aynthing more than the money.I have no idea whether your "law of Recapitulation" is Haeckel's "biogenetic law" (his own pet idea, not part of Darwin's theory or modern evolutinary theory) or modern views of recapitulation (which aren't even false).Nobody knows the motive for fabricating Piltdown man. One possible explanation was to embarrass Dawson. Evolution didn't need it.The "false" equine series was a mistake based on limited data.There is no fraud at all in the peppered moth case.Ramapithecus and Hesperopithecus (the so-called Nebraska man) were likewise mistakes.So out of all your examples NOT ONE stands up to examination. At least 4 are completely false accusations !

By some strange coincidence your accusations of fraud ALSO happened to have no corroboration. Apparently scientists are to be held guilty until proven innocent.If creationists had a real case they wouldn't be so in love with double standards and false accusations.

quote:

---

Since this is OT, this will be the last post I have on this topic. Its already been overwhelmingly proven that those are frauds or the deliberate withholding of evidence. Therefore, if you want to spin some sort of creationist conspiracy theory, then the burden of proof lies with you, not with me or anyone else.

---

Of course the fact is that you offered no corroboration. Simply asserting that there is proof elsewhere is just another double standard. Even if it were true.The question was one of motive as well as fraud. Some are frauds as I agreed - but your claim of motive has not been supported. In the case of the others your assertion is an outright falsehood.I will also add that I have not made the assertion that there is any creationist conspiracy. Why should there be ? Creationists freely copy from each other. There need be no organised conspiracy. All it takes is for one creationist to publicise a false accusation and others will repeat it without bothering to check it.If you dare, you can start a thread to back up your assertions. A Great Debate if you like. I have no fear because I know that the truth is on my side.

Maybe Schroeder has done some good science in the past but I have seen some very serious criticisms of the "science" in his apologetic works. So maybe he isn't a good example to use. I'd rather use even Kurt Wise - but Francis Collins, Simon Conway-Morris or Howard Van Till might be better choices.