Faith vs Science

Sorry but the "apart from Jesus Christ Himself" is certainly not evidence of anything.The Bible stories like any stories can be accepted as evidence that at some time someone wrote what the stories contain, but that is about the only weight the Bible should be given. No, Faith never has evidence. If there is evidence no faith is required. It's perfectly normal for folk to get angry when their beliefs are challenged. What is important is whether they get angry at the challenger or themselves? It is only when they get angry with themselves, when they stop and seriously critically examine their beliefs that growth is possible. No, that is simply silly. If there is a different definition then it is NOT science.

Believers are passionate about their sourceS, plural. There's the Bible, the Qur'an, the Vedas, etc. How do you compare one source with another if you throw science out the window?

The user "Faith" has rather transparent reasons for wanting to change the rules of science, and those reasons are that Faith can't win a debate if we use the rules of science that have been around for the last 200 years.We are told that it is "unfair" if YEC's have to follow the rules of science or the scientific method. Of course, the truth is just the opposite.To help illustrate this point, let's look at my out-of-luck Seattle Mariners (an American baseball team for those outside of the US). They are below 0.500, and kind of stink this year. If I were to use the YEC definition of fair, then the Seattle Mariners should be allowed to change the rules when they are at bat. They should get 10 outs and 8 strikes per at bat so that they can win. Afterall, if they can't win then it isn't fair, according to YEC's. Right?What YEC's can't seem to understand is that changing the rules is completely UNFAIR. We define cheating as those who try to change or circumvent the rules so they can win. It is YEC's who want the mantle of science in order to make their beliefs look believable. If they want to earn that mantle, then they have to follow the rules.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Our argument is that belief needs to be respected rather than simply dismissed without evidence

---

That depends on what you mean by respect. And the beliefs. And what you mean by "simply dismissed without evidence". Certainly the absence of evidence is not a reason for anyone else to accept a belief. In fact I would go further. Given the ridiculously large number of possibilities that can be made to fit the evidence it seems to be necessary to discard a great number of those possibilities without evidence. Evidence is required for belief far more than for disbelief.But all too often believers object to people who prefer to follow the evidence. Some believers are honest enough to accept this. Other believers are not at all honest. And I do not accept that dishonesty and deception deserve respect.

quote:

---

Your argument is that science by definition rejects and dismisses a myriad of things on a regular basis

---

As it must do, although most of them are never formulated.But I think the most important thing to point out is that there is a huge difference between dismissing a belief and pointing out that it is not scientific. YECs would do better to honestly embrace the fact that their beliefs are contrary to science rather than falsely insisting otherwise, no matter what advantage they hope to gain.

I respect the right of someone to believe as they wish, but that doesn't equate to a respect for the belief itself. Without evidence, beliefs should be simply dismissed. How else are we going to find the truth of the world if we are busy holding a nearly infinite number of contradictory beliefs in our head? Yes. Why is that a problem?If you still want to believe in something that science does not accept, then that is certainly your right.

It's not a claim - it's a necessary fact. In order for a petrol engine to work it needs petrol. The scientific method is what it is - it can't be something else just because believers in irrational systems wish it was different. You'll just have to accept that your belief is what it is. It ain't scientific or rational and it never can be. (It's also wrong, but that's another issue.)

What would you propose?

Faith in science wins, faith in facts and the real world even if unseen, whether micro or macro wins.Faith and Science are not two different entities as suggested by this topic or TITLE. Its a poorly worded title and irrational and illogical topic title.Evolutionists faith in their bones and imaginations is as bad as church peoples faith in something they have never tested out or tried.True faith and true science is when you try and test out theories and find out if they work.Mystery solved...

The irony, it burns.

No irony at all. Its consistent and logical.The Lord of ALL created all, and as the Creator created all science and all laws. He didnt just create biology, but all sciences and math, physics, chemistry etc.... all things and all laws binding them together. All as in ALL.(SEE thread on Laws did not evolve)The more you study in science the more you see the intelligent design of what was created.The more you see and read and know the more FAITH you get in facts and correspondances and the reral world as well as the unseen scientific world.Logical and rational.

So how do you test creationism?

Because "science" is not the only way that we make choices.Not everything in life is evident.

Ringo, we have been over this many times in many other threads.Evolution has not been tested and can not be tested, and has no factual evidence. Creation is, and the facts of science, observation, geology, history, biology, chemistry, and the laws of nature or the laws of the Universe prove it.Similiarly as previously written, the spiritual world can be tested and proven scientifically, as well as the existence of spiritual beings like Jesus.Must I rewrite everything for you.No wonder I started a website with 1300 articles so I wouldnt have to rewrite everything for every Ringo that came along.SEE other threads HERE...

That doesn't answer the question. How do you compare one source with another if you throw science out the window?

Yes. Answer the question: HOW do you test creationism?List the experiments done and the results.