AV will use "physical evidence" when it serves him. I suspect he relies on physical evidence every single day of his life. I bet he holds the handrail while going up stairs, I bet he doesn't walk of cliffs, and I bet he is more than happy to know that statistically living here in the U.S. he's able to enjoy a ridiculously safe water and food supply, all largely due to science and "physical evidence".
I bet AV has had innoculations and goes to regular modern day doctors.
He uses a computer, an impossibility without "physical evidence" which laid the foundation for its development.
He rejects science and physical evidence
when it suits him.
But what he doesn't realize is: that isn't how the machine works. You can't just "reject" a little bit of reality when it suits you in hopes of saving parts you like.
What I find amazing about people like AV is they would have me believe that they can pick and choose which things require "evidence" and which things are true
despite the evidence.
If evidence is of no value, then how does he function in the world?
As for science, well, that's a great topic. You see, AV claims along with his associates degree and >170 IQ to be quite a chess player. That is something that requires "strategy". Which means one must be able to put together a string of events moving forward in time based on some presumable set of possibilities.
What AV doesn't seem to realize about
science is; it too must follow specific rules of evidence. He wants to talk about "creation" in regards to what it says in Genesis 1.
Well, Genesis 1 has events occuring in the wrong order
as shown by physical evidence. So AV rejects the physical
in this particular part of reality and places a book of unknown origin above the physical evidence.
That's fine. That is is his perogative. But he must now either choose:
1. He must explain why the evidence in this case is flawed using superior evidence.
2. Reject all physical evidence.
To reject the uniformitarianist approach to geologic history of the earth he will have to reject all of physics and chemistry. Not just the weird quantum stuff, but
all of it, even down to "falling bodies", gravity, and concepts like the "Law of Superposition" (basically which states that if object A is on top of object B and there's no reason to believe they were overturned, then A was placed after B. I sit on the chair means the chair was there first, not that I assumed a sitting position in space and the chair was manufactured under me. That's an oversimplification, but the gist of it).
AV has to choose to reject all physical evidence or some. If he rejects some he must provide a reason.
That reason is; he believes a book of unknown and unproven origin is superior to the vastness of the physical evidence.
NOW, imagine for a second that you are on trial for a crime and AV is the judge. There is a mountain of physical evidence that says you are likely
not guilty of the crime, you were no where near the crime scene. But AV has found a piece of paper on which is written "someone you see in front of your desk has committed a crime!" He interprets it to mean
you and he will adjudicate you guilty.
That is his judgement, that is his "faith" that the piece of paper is right.
Now, there is just a slight possibility that AV found a confession written by you because you
did commit the crime! You
are guilty but you are a crafty criminal who hid the evidence.
But the question remains: was AV correct in judging you "guilty" of the crime? Was his reasoning sound?
In science he would be found lacking in judgement. He claims to "know" but in reality he is merely expressing his "feelings".
MAYBE Genesis
is correct and accurate as an account of the earth's early history. The evidence would suggest it is
incorrect. The vastness of the evidence speaks against its correctness.
Is AV correct in tossing out the vast majority of the evidence to come to his judgement? It is fully within his right to do so.
However, he needs to remember that which he fails to remember all the time: his "wishes" do not translate into "fact" just because they are wishes. He is not capable of the
fiat lux.
He is well within his rights to hold his religion superior. But why he comes on a discussion forum and offers to "answer questions" and then immediately grants they are "his opinion" and why he thinks that will be of value to
anyone but him is beyond me. I wish he would be internally consistent in reliance on evidence, but he is, after all, only human.