Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

thank you for proving the OP without having to imply it.You have, admitted, in full, out and right, that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your position. That sort of "faith science", then, is undoubtedly logically indefensible.once again, thank you for finally showing your true colors.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

On earth, what goes up must come down -- within the atmospheric range of course.

I think when you say consensus what you're really thinking of is accepting argument from authority. The consensus I'm talking about is of a community of scientists who have all researched and studied the same problem.--Percy

Actually that IS what I was talking about.For example the consensus of those who studied astronomy was of a terracentric universe for a long time. This was not strictly because of adherence to faith. Eventually the reality of heliocentrism won out to create a consensus on that issue, but it started with a much smaller group that was right for a very long time without consensus.You are correct that what ultimately happens is an argument from authority, but my point was trying to get at the unimportance of consensus in science.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Faith's large reply to the actual OP is a better demonstration of my point than I could have hoped for.
An absolute conviction in the bible as fact despite no physical evidence to suport this and the subsequent inability to objectively even consider any evidence that contradicts these "facts" and opposing conclusions. This is scientific method in reverse and as such not science.To those who keep saying that there are many Christian scientists in answer to my OP - I am not saying that there are not. I am saying that any faith position precludes the person of that position undertaking scientific investigation into any area that may conflict with that faith.Anyone who believes in evolution (or anything ele) on faith would have the same problem. It applies to any position of faith.The difference is that evolution is not based on faith.Read Faith's post above if you want to know why it is impossible for creationists to undertake scientific investigation because I cannot demonstrate it better than that.

what is fact? how do we know anything in that position is fact, theres no evidence to back anything in the bible up, other than hearsay and wishful thinking your faith is the only thing making the bible seem factual, its an illusion. it colors the way you see things, this doesn't mean the bible is right, it only shows you think it is, but the earth and the universe doesn't agree with the bible i'm still waiting for anyone to show evidence that geology and cosmology is wrong and the bible is right, if you don't come from the conclution that the bible is right, even when there is evidence that its not right, i might be more willing to accept the bible as factual.
but i have yet to see anything that shows this creation science first needs to show why thier explaination is a better answer than the currently held scientific one. other wise its not objective, saying "this controdicts the bible,so its wrong!" is not an answer that is based on anything objective i think he was being general about it. if you have to interprete it then to me, you shouldn't have a problem with god creating life with evolution and genesis is just a story of the people who wrote it. i don't think you can have remotely 100% or even 80% certinty with the hacked up job the bible is. its like they pasted it togather one day saying "this is good, lets add this too" well contending that its supposed rather than real opposing evidence to what you believe is a double standard. thinking its false because it disagrees with your belief shows he's correct and your faith colors your objectivness, hurting your credibilty

We're not using consensus in the same way, not consistently at least, so just forget the word.What I'm talking about derives from the scientific requirement for replicability. When a finding can't be replicated, science crosses a possibility off the list. When a finding is replicated it becomes accepted and science moves on to the next discovery. The key point I was making is that science accepts what many scientists are able to verify and confirm. The accepted views of science become the stakes in the ground that guide scientific thinking. They become what is considered the body of scientific knowledge.When a portion of this body of knowledge is wrong it can be very difficult to uncover and eliminate, and for science to progress it greatly helps to use an approach that serves to minimize the mistakes, which is where replicability comes in. Replicability means that contributions to this knowledge develop out of the shared experiences of a community of scientists researching and studying the same problem.But this is a side issue to the topic of this thread. My original point was that certainty affects how we interpret evidence. As the creationists are fond of saying, your worldview affects how you interpret the evidence, and they are absolutely right. But if your worldview develops out of real-world evidence then your conclusions will likely conform to the real world, while if your worldview develops out of revelation that is independent of real-world evidence, then your conclusions are unlikely to have any real-world validity or application.The creationist problem is that their certainties are not based on real-world evidence, hence their assessment and analysis of evidence does not lead to real-world conclusions.--Percy

I was thinking about this last night and decided to wait until you replied before writing more about it. I came to a very similar conclusion to what I think you are discussing here.My problem was with the concept of consensus, which generally means agreement. That I maintain is not important. However, largescale testing by a community IS important.When an individual has a result, and many others continue to have the same result, then it makes individual error (or chance results) less likely as a reason for those results. But many others having different results will drastically effect one's theory because it makes error or chance more likely.So its more that passing theories through the filter of a community engaged in repeated trials is important to science, with its negative effects meaning more than its general agreement (which could still be flawed due to insufficient levels of evidence). Absolute agreement. My guess is the reply will be that the revelation in the Bible is of real-world experience, as they are eye-witness accounts.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Faith wrote:

quote:

---

Yes, this is largely because of their inadequate ideas of what would constitute evidence for the flood. The Bible gives scanty information to work from, and it was far more taken for granted than it was thought through in scientific terms, so that it didn't take much to change their minds.

---

If that were the case, then geologists would have re-embraced the flood model. As this topic has shown well, it's only by denying evidence (putting faith before evidence) that can support current YEC ideas of a flood.Thanks for the reply, and I hope your computer is fixed soon.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

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. What is the difference? There is none. Its just that naturalists have tried to set up a monopoly on what the word 'faith' really means. Faith is faith. The only difference is there are instances of blind faith and an informed faith. 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. What other purpose does it serve to acid treat both human and primate bones and splice them together like some sort of chimera and bury them in a rock quarry to be found by eminent proponents of evolution? What other purpose does that serve, if not to further the cause for evolution?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Hi nemesis_juggernaut,Don't allow yourself to be drawn off-topic. Evolutionary fraud is not the topic of this thread. I'm sure you'll find many willing to discuss evolutionary fraud with you in the appropriate thread.Expressing it more generally this time, this thread concerns the effect preconceptions have upon assessment and analysis of evidence. The assertion of the opening post is that preconceptions based upon faith make it impossible to arrive at conclusions consistent with real world evidence. This is the topic we're addressing in this thread.--Percy

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 !

Its not impossible to overcome but certainly its a problem when preconceptions enter into the mind of the experimentor. But then again, we could look at this from another angle. Any scientific inquiry that is made is first derived from some preconcieved notion that prompts an investigation of evidence. We call this a hypothesis. So, if you think about it, all hypothesis' begin with preconceptions. Where this becomes a problem is when people maintain a certain belief even when the evidence runs counter to that belief. No one is immune to this. It takes integrity and it takes someone to force themselves to be objective.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Percy has informed me that it is off-topic to continue in this vein, but let me say that just because you say so without any kind of corroboration doesn't allow for your testimony to hold any weight.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

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.