Is personal faith a debatable topic?

Bringing up cosmology in a FLood thread was nothing mroe than a red herring topped with a tu quoque, Buz.Whether Big Bang cosmology is science founded on solid evidence is irrelevant to whether or not you can provide evidence of a global Flood.Whether Big Bang cosmology has an accurate model of the early Unvierse is irrelevant to whether Coyote's individual archeological research disproves a global Flood.Bringing up your "good for the goose, good for the gander" nonsense serves as nothing more than a useless, completely off topic distraction, and is in fact dishonest debating.What if we were in an evolution thread, and when you ask me for evidence that mutations happen, I respond "prove that Jesus really rose from the dead!"The topics are completely independent from each other. Even if you were to prove conclusively that Big Bang cosmology is inaccurate or is based on faith rather than evidence, you would still not have shown evidence for a global Flood.Why did you feel the need to dodge the question, Buz?

I'm not following here. There are plenty experimental results that could falsify that prediction; for instance if pure water separated into hydrogen and cobalt, it would falsify the prediction and thus the rule. Obviously such a test would need to be repeated and the results reproduced independently, but if it could be done it would fundamentally alter our understanding. I cannot see why you think this makes any sense at all. You say that God is unwilling to provide proof of its existence; that it is unwilling to provide any good reason for an atheist to believe in God over any other imaginary concept. Yet God expects them to do so.Yet, again, he sees fit to personally meet with you and other believers in order to convince you utterly of his existence. Doesn't that seem backwards?It is like Superman deciding to play Hide and Seek without telling you, hiding behind Pluto, and then when you don't find him murdering you in as horrifying a fashion as possible. Why can't you see how messed up that is?

More accurately perhaps, if something is true then then it would imply certain things. If those things are observed that that gives us a little more confidence that the something is true. It's a little more complicated than that, but I think it is a bit better than your wording. Your personal conviction, as you point out, is not always sufficient grounds to persuade somebody else. After all, humans have a lot of convictions many of which have been shown to be false.The question is - is there any reasonable discussion to be had with a person who believes their personal conviction is special (aka faith)? Or do they just say 'it's my personal conviction that it is true and that is all that matters', effectively shutting down any discussion. Sounds a bit odd. On the one hand he gives empirical proof to some people (I would call, meeting God personally to be empirical proof) but not others? Why can he not simply meet with everybody on their sixteenth birthday? That way, it'd still require that we trust that he is god and not a powerful alien (so faith would still exist) - but he would be able to differentiate himself from a random hallucination/epileptic episode/stroke/numinous experience/etc.And that way we'd all know to what we are referring when we use the word God. We mean the entity responsible for the sixteenth birthday meeting. Why does he seem to visit people and give them different stories (Islam, Sikhism etc)?If someone has faith that they met Allah and Muhammed - do you think it is possible to have any form of debate, meeting of the minds, constructive discussion with regards to it? Or do you feel they would simply stick to their guns about their personal conviction that the Koran is the Word of God?

You can debate them as honestly as you want, but as long as they don't see your evidence as "evidence," it will not be successful. This is where I'm in agreement with what CS is saying. Teach them to think logically and use reasoning, like I do with my kids, and if they're smart enough they'll reach the same conclusions as science and value empirical evidence.Look at Buz. He doesn't believe there is evidence for the BB because he has a totally screwed up concept and understanding of the BB. He literally doesn't believe the concept he himself invented. And he's so fucked up in his other beliefs that he can't even realize that.Why would ANYONE waste time with him, or anyone that thinks like that? ICANT is the same way. But most here do so in an honest fashion, yet it is almost never successful. You can't. And it's not that you shouldn't because it's not acceptable to do so, you shouldn't because it's a waste of time.One main thing to remember is that their beliefs and your scientific evidence wouldn't change their lives at all. They'll just say, "Oh, that's how the sun formed" or, "Ok, now I understand how organisms evolve. Thanks." But that's about it. So what would be their reason for giving in to your argument and seeing it your way? To let you win? People are stubborn, they'd rather live with their ignorance than ever admit being wrong.I think that's what faith is, never being able to admit that you're just fucking wrong!- Oni

But is it not acceptable to do so? I mean as a non-believer, is it a faux-pas? For certain people (**cough**BUZSAW**cough**), yes, it is a waste of time. However, there are other people who are only ignorant of the science because they just don't have an interest. Not so much that they HAVE read the journals and articles and still don't buy into it, but because they've really only heard one side of the story.Or are you saying it isn't worth it due to the fact that they accept the shit on faith, so therefor are very very unlikely to even listen to the other side? I see what you mean. However, in my particular case, the life I am concerned with is my son's. The indvidual I had the discussion with is my son's babysitter (my ex has custody). I could give a shit if I change their life, I just want to at least pass on knowledge. If I can get one person to stop and think "hmm, maybe this whole science thing isn't so bad after all", I think my immediate world will be better off. That is a very good point Oni.

---

The point is not always to actually cause them to conceded - that's usually a lost cause before debate even begins.But the debates bring out people like Son Goku and cavediver, who are pretty damned good at translating physics and math into layman-speak without becoming as uselessly inaccurate and sensationalist as your typical science magazine. They also present an opportunity for some of the rest of us to practice critical thinking skills, seeing if we can identify the fallacies in their arguments. And I find that, personally, trying to explain a concept to someone else actually helps me understand it better.And of course there are the lurkers. For those people sitting on the fence who never make a single post, they get to see the difference between what ICANT/Buzsaw think science says about cosmic origins, and then they get to read what actual physicists say, and observe as the creationists continue to argue against their strawman while completely and utterly refusing (not just failing) to comprehend the actual science.While there's very little to gain in terms of "winning a debate" with ICANT et al, I still think there's plenty of reason to take the time to engage them.

The purpose of my message was to bring home to you that the reason you don't consider my evidence as valid is because you're trying to require my evidence to comply with your thesis premise of singularity event, big bang and relative uniformity. Neither of us was around to observe, so we hypothesize as to which thesis premise we think best fits the observed evidence. You say my evidence is invalid and I say your's is. I'm with ICR and other creationists when it comes to evidence such as the geology of the Grand Canyon, for example. I've observed the research video on it and other stuff Their evidence makes good sense to me. The debate goes on, but you can't say there's no evidence of a global flood. ICR and others have it. Yes it's debatable. So what's new?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

We don't buy it. We have a different outlook; a different thesis premise on which we base observed evidence. Of course you people are stubborn as well. You wouldn't admit to evidence of a designer entity of higher intelligence, ever. It would not set well with you to admit accountability.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Do you wake up on Monday mornings and ask yourself "what English words can I smash together to enhance Buz-speak this week?"? Your prose is worse than the Indians (no offense) I have to talk to at work. They live in India. English is their second, if not third or fourth, language. You have the IQ of a child, so that doesn't say much. Santa Clause makes "good sense" to my son, does that make it a good theory?I will say though, Buz, you are almost a prime candidate for this topic. Except for the fact that you are happily and willfully ignorant. You are scared of knowledge. You wallow in your stupidity and wear it proudly on your sleeve.Please leave my thread since you have nothing of value to add to it.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Buz, you are incredible!You will do anything, it seems, to avoid the subject of evidence disproving the belief in a global flood about 4,350 years ago.This is very simple. We don't need to go back billions of years to singularity events and the big bang. Or millions of years to the Grand Canyon.We only need to go into your back yard and find soils that are about 4,350 years old. That is where the evidence will be, one way or the other.Archaeologists (and other -ologists) look at that time period every day of the week. I have tested probably 100+ sites spanning that time period.None of us have found evidence that should have been there! Rather, we have found continuity of human cultures, genomes, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. No evidence of flood deposits or erosional features which would be necessary for a flood of global proportions. We have found evidence of older and smaller floods (which would have been erased by a global flood).Now quit dodging the issue. I know, as does everyone else here, that you are dodging. Either you have an answer to this lack of flood evidence or you don't. You just make yourself look silly and inadequate by bringing in irrelevant side issues as if they meant anything to what we are discussing.Stick to the issue. Present your evidence. Or admit that the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is a myth.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's a fair point but it only seems relevant in a debate forum like this one. I don't think Hooah would have the ability to reference guys like cave and son to his sister in law.For the purpose of this forum and those of us who enjoy learning from these guys, it's great to debate the likes of Buz and ICANT. I have, like you , learned a lot. But if a result is what Hooah is looking for I think he won't get it from the sis in law. Absolutely. And I'll continue to do so. Sometimes what I think is the right answer turns out to be wrong, and in steps someone like cave or Wounded King and sets me straight. That's why I usually respond anyway, cause I'm close to the right answer I just need a better explanation.- Oni

You are in no position to "buy it"or not. You don't know more than those who study these subjects for a living and contribute to the advancement of science. So you should feel privileged to learn from them and stifle yourself. What do you mean by, You people?!Scientist are stubborn? Is that what you're saying? That they don't study the evidence properly? Cause that's where I get my answers from. I highly doubt the entire world community of scientist is in some kind of conspiracy to reject creationism... and I love conspiracies! This is just too far fetched.So in my view, it follows that the best answers we can get come from the fields of science, right? Why would I value any other source?- Oni

EX-girlfriend's friend. Emphasis on the EX.

---

Here's the deal, Coyote. We both have an unproven thesis premise, yours being the alleged singularity, having no space to have happened in, no time in which to have happened, no outside of into which to expand, and no model. My unproven thesis premise is the alleged global flood which at least had space to have existed, time in which it could have happened and space into which it could have expanded the volumn of earth surface.Coyote, you tell me. Which thesis premise best satisfies the observable laws of science?

Either deal with the issue of the global flood or go jump. You are making a complete ass of yourself.Now, support the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago or don't bother responding with your strawmen.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.