Flood evidence

[Split Rock]

They aren't going to agree with you though, because they don't have a proper definition of faith.

Instead of researching it ... like a real scientist probably should ... many of them just use Mark Twain's definition.

(And I don't remember what it is right now.)

ETA: Just looked it up:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -Mark Twain

I gave him an opportunity to defend his assertion in the thread I started "Evolution is a Religion: Reloaded." He failed to do so. The only way to make evolution a religion, is to define it so losely that membership in the Republican party is also a "religion."

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, the same old arguments I hear on these forums. The heat would vaporize the oceans, there wouldn't be enough time to generate the heat needed, yada, yada. Then they don't take in the consideration of deep, pressurized ocean water acting/reacting with the heat.

They do take it into consideration.

This is what you have to realize. That there is always more than one way to interpret data, to interpret evidence.

However, there is only one right way to interpret the evidence. You start with your conclusion, and then you twist or ignore the facts so that you reach that conclusion. That is the wrong way to interpret evidence.

So then we go back to the presuppositions, which goes back to eyewitness accounts, which goes back to faith.

The presupposition is that they are eyewitness accounts. Also, we are saying that you need to follow the evidence instead of using faith and presuppositions.

Which is why I call evolution a faith religion.

That is an outright lie. We have supplied evidence throughout.

 

[lasthero]

The only way to make evolution a religion, is to define it so losely that membership in the Republican party is also a "religion."

...no. No, it's too easy.

 

[EternalDragon]

However, there is only one right way to interpret the evidence. You start with your conclusion, and then you twist or ignore the facts so that you reach that conclusion. That is the wrong way to interpret evidence.

Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion. (Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)

Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.

Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.

Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently. Your facts are not facts. They are inferences from the evidence and yes, they can have different conclusions which you label "twisted" just because they don't fit your particular presupposition.

 

[lasthero]

ED, you're never going to solve Barry's problem, are you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion.

You started with the conclusion before you looked at the evidence.

(Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)

That is a presupposition.

Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.

Evolutionists find that DNA and morphology falls into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists find that every single fossil we find confirms the predictions made by the theory of evolution.

Geologists find that igneous rocks above and below sediment layers can be used to date that layer.

Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.

And then they ignore the relationships between those facts, and cling to the conclusion they started with before they even looked at the evidence.

Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently.

But only Evolutionists interpret the data in a way that is consistent with observations. Creationists do not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave him an opportunity to defend his assertion in the thread I started "Evolution is a Religion: Reloaded." He failed to do so. The only way to make evolution a religion, is to define it so losely that membership in the Republican party is also a "religion."

But look at Mark Twain's definition.

It says we lie to ourselves.

And ... um ... just by coincidence, isn't that what I have been accused of doing? lying to myself?

That's probably one of the reasons we're always called "liars."

Maybe that's why Mark Twain's definition is the default definition among scientists here: it fits their profile of us.

 

[Split Rock]

But look at Mark Twain's definition.

It says we lie to ourselves.

And ... um ... just by coincidence, isn't that what I have been accused of doing? lying to myself?

That's probably one of the reasons we're always called "liars."

Maybe that's why Mark Twain's definition is the default definition among scientists here: it fits their profile of us.

I am not one who quotes Mark Twain on the topic. Is he an expert on theology? I don't think so.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion. (Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)

Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.

Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.

Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently. Your facts are not facts. They are inferences from the evidence and yes, they can have different conclusions which you label "twisted" just because they don't fit your particular presupposition.

Do you really not understand the difference between coming to a conclusion before looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion after looking at the evidence? The former is ideological.. the latter is scientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, no. We all have the same evidence. We all look at it and come to a conclusion. (Only creationists do have eyewitness testimony to history.)

Evolutionists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Evolutionists find an incomplete fossil record. Evolutionists find sediment layers.

Creationists find similarities in DNA and morphology. Creationists find an incomplete fossil record. Creationists find sediment layers.

Both Evolutionists and Creationists interpret found data differently. Your facts are not facts. They are inferences from the evidence and yes, they can have different conclusions which you label "twisted" just because they don't fit your particular presupposition.

Nope, by the action of evolutionary scientist they "own" all of the evidence and it supports them.


Remember when I told you what scientific evidence is and linked to a description of it?

The reason that creationists have no evidence is that they refuse to make a testable model. If your ideas are not strong enough to test you have no evidence to support them.