Originally posted by RJHinds
If the prosecuting attorney can limit the evidence to only what he likes, he could probably convict Mother Teresa of numerous crimes against humanity.

Scientists specifically don't limit the evidence, which is why the sciences progress.

Originally posted by C Hess
Yet, you can't escape the fact that evolution fits the evidence perfectly, whereas
creationism takes blind faith to believe. I know blind faith is considered a strength in
religious circles, but in science it's perfectly useless.

Anyone that believes in evolution might as well be blind because it can't be seen.

Originally posted by C Hess
Scientists specifically don't limit the evidence, which is why the sciences progress.

However evolutionists do try to limit the evidence. So now do you see why your analogy and evolution does not work?

Originally posted by RJHinds
However evolutionists do try to limit the evidence. So now do you see why your analogy and evolution does not work?

An "evolutionist" is not necessarily a scientist, but those who are (the ones whose writing
matter) most certainly don't limit evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
...as a response to your unreal suggestion that a scientific theory is as much a guess work,
a belief as any other story describing what happened in the past; to clarify why this is not
so. How can you possibly maintain your insipid position to the contrary?

I never said they are the same. I simply said that both require faith. You put your faith in one thing, I put my faith in another. Only a fool would say that are the same thing.

Originally posted by Eladar
I never said they are the same. I simply said that both require faith. You put your faith in one thing, I put my faith in another. Only a fool would say that are the same thing.

Obviously, basing a belief purely on flawless logic and evidence, which is what true science is really about by any reasonable definition of the word 'science', is clearly not faith by any reasonable definition of the word 'faith' -you are talking nonsense.

Originally posted by humy
Obviously, basing a belief purely on flawless logic and evidence, which is what true science is really about by any reasonable definition of the word 'science', is clearly not faith by any reasonable definition of the word 'faith' -you are talking nonsense.

Just means you have faith in "flawless human logic".

Originally posted by Eladar
Just means you have faith in "flawless human logic".

I, like most scientists, don't have faith in "human logic", which I know to be, like your logic for example, so often flawed. But I do rationally trust "flawless" human logic when and where it exist, not because I trust "human logic", because I don't unless it is flawless, but rather because I rationally trust "flawless logic" -to not do so would be illogical. One doesn't require"faith" in pure flawless logic else it isn't pure flawless logic by any reasonable definition of pure flawless logic.
Therefore, even your assertion that I have "faith" in "flawless human logic" is false even where and when that logic is actually flawless or even when it is my own logic and even when my logic is totally flawless,

Originally posted by humy
Obviously, basing a belief purely on flawless logic and evidence, which is what true science is really about by any reasonable definition of the word 'science', is clearly not faith by any reasonable definition of the word 'faith' -you are talking nonsense.

I put my faith in flawless logic and evidence. That is why I do not believe in the theory of evolution. There is little or no evidence for evolution and it is based on flawed logic, as well as flawed reasoning.

Originally posted by Eladar
Just means you have faith in "flawless human logic".

Evidence and the scientific method, that's what we have "faith" in (if you must call it faith).
The difference between your blind faith and our faith in empirical evidence and the peer
review process makes your statement void of any relevance to this discussion, I'm sorry.
Creationism is not made more scientifically useful even if we admit to having "faith" as
described here.

Originally posted by C Hess
Evidence and the scientific method, that's what we have "faith" in (if you must call it faith).
The difference between your blind faith and our faith in empirical evidence and the peer
review process makes your statement void of any relevance to this discussion, I'm sorry.
Creationism is not made more scientifically useful even if we admit to having "faith" as
described here.

Yes, I know. I have my sacred documents and you have yours. I've never said any different.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I put my faith in flawless logic and evidence. That is why I do not believe in the theory of evolution. There is little or no evidence for evolution and it is based on flawed logic, as well as flawed reasoning.

O.K. let's see how good your logic is then. Where do you stand on the law of the divided middle? Do you agree that, for some proposition P, "P and not P" is an automatic contradiction, or do you, as some philosophers do, doubt it?

Originally posted by DeepThought
O.K. let's see how good your logic is then. Where do you stand on the law of the divided middle? Do you agree that, for some proposition P, "P and not P" is an automatic contradiction, or do you, as some philosophers do, doubt it?

O.K. let's see how good your logic is then.

LOL. I think we have already seen enough of that!

Originally posted by DeepThought
O.K. let's see how good your logic is then. Where do you stand on the law of the divided middle? Do you agree that, for some proposition P, "P and not P" is an automatic contradiction, or do you, as some philosophers do, doubt it?

Something can not be TRUE and NOT TRUE at the same time. That would be a contradiction, in my humble opinion. However, depending on what "P" represents "not P" may just be the opposite of "P" and not a contradiction.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes, I know. I have my sacred documents and you have yours. I've never said any different.

🙄

You're nuts.