Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

well, gee, that's the problem isn't. Apparently, you believe that only your beliefs are fact, and anything that might even hint at the contrary is denied.belief in 2 + 2 = 5
evidence 2 + 2 + 4
no it doesn't, no it doesn't, no it doesn't, 2 and 2 really do make 5, you just can't see cause you're not using 1984 as your starting point.and you wonder why no one takes you seriously (or rather, takes what you say to be true to actually be true, aside from those who already agreed with you).You just proved the OP--faith based position are incapable of logically defending itself. you have to resort to willful ignorance or outright denial in defence of the argument.

---

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.

And I'll argue that creation science is impossible. can you give me a list of unquestionable facts in the bible, especially scientific facts?you don't start with facts in science. ever hear of the method?1)observation--hey, if I do this, then this happens
2)hypothesis--that happens because of x
3)testing--finding evidence for the x hypothesis
4)data--collect and organize your data. does it support x?
5)conclusion--if it does, good. If not, try again.Real world example
1)hey, the sun and planets and starts appear to go around the earth
2)it does because the earth is at the center
3)find a pattern of movement, can it accurately predict future movement?
4)found a pattern, can make predictions
5)however, predictions were not accurate. we need to refine the prediction making process.science doesn't start with facts. Einstein sure as hell didn't start with E = mc². That's part of one of his theories (or maybe it's on it's own, not sure). This theory is his interpretation of what the math was telling him about this phenomonen, and our work has solidified it. However, (if only slightly possible) he, and all of us, might have gotten this wrong.If those creationist scientists are starting with facts in the bible, then they've already screwed up--by starting with facts.Oh, and if you are trying to prove a fact, you are under the obligation to do so. no cop outs allowed.

---

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.

you're still right, seeing as how math isn't science. It is one hundred percent pure logic. There's no method behind it (like the scientific method, and yes, I do realize that if you don't complete toe order of operations in the right order you get the wrong answer, but that's not the type of method I'm talking about). There is no philosophy behind it (though philosophies can revolve around it--ask Pythagoras).

---

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.

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.