Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

Faith does not entail 100% certainty in actuality, it just means that the possessor of said faith belives that he/she will be justified what they cannot currently prove empirically. 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. And yet they speak so disparagingly about faith. Evolutionists use just as much faith as the average creationist. 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. Like it or not, evolution has given the breath of life into a meaningful stance on atheism. Without a reason to exist at all, what fulfilling purpose would an atheist have for explaning his own existence without the theory?To be fair, its completely reasonable to suppose that certain creationists are willing to 'create' their own evidence instead of following the evidence wherever it may lead. And such subjectivity has no place within the realm of science which rightly sees no bias. 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.Some food for thought.

---

"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

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

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

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.

---

"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

What I meant was that whenever somebody sees a phenomenon they can't totally explain, the starting point for any scientific inquiry comes from some idea or preexisting notion in the mind of the experimentor. This is obvious. Where it becomes a problem is when the experimentor deliberately falsifies information that runs counter to his personal belief(s). That's where I make the distinction.

---

"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