Christian Forums

QuoteSo then, if logical certainty is only possible if you can prove your conclusion, and logical certainty does not exist in science...then science is not able to prove its conclusions.

Right.  Like most things in this world, we can't prove them, but we can get enough evidence to accept them as true.   All the technology, medicine, etc. that humans have developed are based on likelihoods, not proofs.

Barbarian observes:
You're confusing laws and theories, now.   Laws can have exceptions.   Theories, however, have to be amended or discarded if there are exceptions found.

QuoteI'm not confusing anything Sir.

You're confusing laws and theories.

QuoteYou just keep on giving the rules every time.

I'm just telling you what the words mean in science.

QuoteWho says that laws have exceptions?

Scientists.

QuoteThey put forth what the law is, based on their scientific study, and are also the one who put forth the exceptions.

Yep.  For example, Newton's first law has exceptions in the case of rotational motion.

QuoteThey, consciously or not, intentionally or not, speak of the result of their work, like it is how things work, being the governing law, and as the explanation as to why things are as they are.

No.  You're confusing laws and theories, again.   Laws predict things.   Theories predict and explain things.    Think of Kepler's laws of planetary motion.   The law predicts how they will move.  Newton's theory of gravitation predicts and explains their motion.    And thereby his theory can be extended to all mass in the universe, unlike Kepler's laws.

QuoteThat when, some things happen that is contrary to what law they came up with says, all they have to do is say, that such is an exception. Easy and convenient.

That's how it is with laws.  That's why gravity is a theory and not a law.   It is more certain than a law.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 09:49:59

QuoteDo what?

We made computers out of dirt?

Yep.   That's how semiconductors are made.  Thought you knew.

No I don't. You are the first I heard say that computers are made out of dirt.

On the first question "Do what?", is with regards what the scientist say, that logical certainty is impossible in science. You said concerning this "We don't know how to do that." And so I asked, DO WHAT?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 09:49:59

QuoteSome glory the evolved ape have come to have in that. And for what? For a holy living and for the glory of God, or for survival of humankind and the desires of his flesh and for his own glory?

God gave us the world to use for our needs.   So there you are.

What needs?

Saying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 11:01:05
Saying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.

Only if you add water.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:12:59
Right.  Like most things in this world, we can't prove them, but we can get enough evidence to accept them as true.   All the technology, medicine, etc. that humans have developed are based on likelihoods, not proofs.

That is like saying that scientists like you see enough evidence that man evolved from apes millions of years ago, which evolved several hundred million years from another living creature, which evolved for still hundreds of millions years from yet another....., which evolved still for billion years even from a non-living matter, and accept them as true. And this is while the scientists can't prove this.

This sounds no different to Christians, who see enough evidence in nature and in the Holy scriptures, that God exists and is the one who created all things including mankind, and is almighty and good, and accepts that as true.

But let me state a couple of points with regards this matter. One point is that we see "faith" is involved, both in the scientist and in the Christian, in what they accept as true. The difference is where faith is coming from. To the scientist, it comes from his scientific work and of other scientists. To the Christian, it comes from the work of God, both in nature and in His words in scriptures. Another point is that, there is this difference, the Christian have proof of what they accept as true, unlike the scientists who says that they can't prove what they accept as true. Concerning the truth that Christians accept, God have provided an absolute proof of His existence~ Jesus Christ. The Christians have Jesus Christ, the testimony that is absolutely true which not only is evidence that God exist, but is Himself the very proof of the existence of God, for He is God Himself, who appeared to the world, manifested in the flesh, seen by angels, which many have heard His words with their own ears, which many have seen His life and works their own eyes.

QuoteThat is like saying that scientists like you see enough evidence that man evolved from apes millions of years ago, which evolved several hundred million years from another living creature, which evolved for still hundreds of millions years from yet another....., which evolved still for billion years even from a non-living matter, and accept them as true. And this is while the scientists can't prove this.

They merely show enough evidence to make it foolish to deny.   As you know, the evidence from genetics, fossil record, anatomical data, and so on is overwhelming.   Even more compelling evolutionary theory predicted the transitional fossils long before anyone had found any of them.   Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.

QuoteBut let me state a couple of points with regards this matter. One point is that we see "faith" is involved, both in the scientist and in the Christian, in what they accept as true.

You've been misled about that.   God requires faith.    Science requires evidence.   

QuoteSaying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.

Takes different kinds of dirt, and we have to process it, of course.   But your computer is made from dirt.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40

QuoteI'm not confusing anything Sir.

You're confusing laws and theories.

I'm not. But of course you're a fellow of the scientists who made up what scientific laws and theories are. If you insist so. 

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40

QuoteWho says that laws have exceptions?

Scientists.

Exactly. And that's the point. And you are a scientist.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40

QuoteThey put forth what the law is, based on their scientific study, and are also the one who put forth the exceptions.

Yep.  For example, Newton's first law has exceptions in the case of rotational motion.

So, I'm clearly not confused. The scientists put forth the law and also are the ones who put forth any exceptions, whenever some thing goes against the law.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40

QuoteThey, consciously or not, intentionally or not, speak of the result of their work, like it is how things work, being the governing law, and as the explanation as to why things are as they are.

No.  You're confusing laws and theories, again.   Laws predict things.   Theories predict and explain things.    Think of Kepler's laws of planetary motion.   The law predicts how they will move.  Newton's theory of gravitation predicts and explains their motion.    And thereby his theory can be extended to all mass in the universe, unlike Kepler's laws.

No Sir. I think you are the one confused here Sir. Laws does not predict things, the scientist does. Theories does not predict and explain things, the scientists does. Laws are statements that states what happens. Theories are explanations of how and why something happens. I have just pointed out to you above that it is the scientist that puts forth the law. And even with theories, it is the scientist who makes the theories.

My point in the quoted excerpt of my post is that, it is the scientist who defines these laws, and any exceptions to it, and so with the theories. And if it's coming from man, then it is man-made. And man. having a fallible and limited mind, so too is anything coming from such mind.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40

QuoteThat when, some things happen that is contrary to what law they came up with says, all they have to do is say, that such is an exception. Easy and convenient.

That's how it is with laws.  That's why gravity is a theory and not a law.   It is more certain than a law.

I know. They are only what the scientists have observed in his limited time. and reach of the created things around him. 

So there is not a law of gravitation? What then is what is called Newton's law of gravitation which states:

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

Is this a scientific law or a theory?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:03:04
Takes different kinds of dirt, and we have to process it, of course.   But your computer is made from dirt.

Not precise at all.  Motherboards are typically a fiberglass type of material with copper for traces.  Chips, cpu's etc are made of semiconductors which are typically silica.  Silica is often a part of a dirt mixture, but dirt is not silica necessarily.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:01:55

QuoteThat is like saying that scientists like you see enough evidence that man evolved from apes millions of years ago, which evolved several hundred million years from another living creature, which evolved for still hundreds of millions years from yet another....., which evolved still for billion years even from a non-living matter, and accept them as true. And this is while the scientists can't prove this.

They merely show enough evidence to make it foolish to deny.   As you know, the evidence from genetics, fossil record, anatomical data, and so on is overwhelming.   Even more compelling evolutionary theory predicted the transitional fossils long before anyone had found any of them.   Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.

I may be foolish then in the eyes of scientists in denying the evolution theory concerning man and life, but I will surely be more foolish if I deny God's words concerning the creation of man and the origin of life, or if I have a blind eye to what is manifested in nature concerning God.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:01:55

QuoteBut let me state a couple of points with regards this matter. One point is that we see "faith" is involved, both in the scientist and in the Christian, in what they accept as true.

You've been misled about that.   God requires faith.    Science requires evidence.

No Sir, I was not misled about that. The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved.

Let me just state this for you to ponder about.

By faith the Christian understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. With science, that is not the case with the scientist. Their understanding of how the world was framed is by their faith in their scientific study and work.   

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:03:04

QuoteSaying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.

Takes different kinds of dirt, and we have to process it, of course.   But your computer is made from dirt.

Perhaps you'll say that plants are made of dirt too, or even man. Both were processed by evolution of course. Would you say that?

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 14:06:13So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved.

You are still confused about faith.  We have faith in what we have come to accept as truth, not vice versa.

QuotePerhaps you'll say that plants are made of dirt too

Actually, plants are mostly composed of water and elements from the atmosphere.   Computers are, of course, made from minerals from the earth.

Quoteor even man.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

QuoteBoth were processed by evolution of course.

Populations evolve.   Individuals do not.

Barbarian explains:   
You've been misled about that.   God requires faith.    Science requires evidence.

QuoteNo Sir, I was not misled about that.

You have been misled.   You're still having trouble getting the distinction between faith and evidence.

QuoteThe Christian and the scientist both...

...the same person, in many cases.

Quoteare man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things.

I am absolutely certain that Jesus is Lord, and died and was resurrected for my sins.   I worry for those who aren't certain of this.

QuoteSo that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved.

You still don't get the difference.   Here, Jesus explains to Thomas:

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. [27] Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. [28] Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. [29] Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.


The other apostles had faith.  Thomas wanted evidence.   Jesus showed him the difference.   Learn from this.

QuoteLet me just state this for you to ponder about.

By faith the Christian understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. With science, that is not the case with the scientist. Their understanding of how the world was framed is by their faith in their scientific study and work.

You're still confusing faith and evidence.   Read from the Gospel of John, and learn.

   

 

QuoteSo there is not a law of gravitation?

There's a theory of gravitation.   Newton's laws are about motion, not gravity.

QuoteWhat then is what is called Newton's law of gravitation

Theory.  Newton referred to it as "my theory."   It's not a law, because it predicts and explains gravity.

Newton's theory of gravity:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

QuoteIs this a scientific law or a theory?

A theory.  It's not uncommon for people to call it a law, but as you learned earlier, it is a theory, because it both predicts and explains phenomena.

QuoteNot precise at all.

But very true. 

On a weight basis, the abundance of silicon in the crust of Earth is exceeded only by oxygen...Pure silicon is too reactive to be found in nature, but it is found in practically all rocks as well as in sand, clays, and soils, combined either with oxygen as silica (SiO2, silicon dioxide) or with oxygen and other elements (e.g., aluminum, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium, or iron) as silicates. The oxidized form, as silicon dioxide and particularly as silicates, is also common in Earth's crust and is an important component of Earth's mantle.
https://www.britannica.com/science/silicon

QuoteMotherboards are typically a fiberglass type of material with copper for traces.

Fiberglass is mostly silica.

QuoteChips, cpu's etc are made of semiconductors which are typically silica.  Silica is often a part of a dirt mixture, but dirt is not silica necessarily.

Its the second most common element in soil.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 17:15:46
But very true. 

On a weight basis, the abundance of silicon in the crust of Earth is exceeded only by oxygen...Pure silicon is too reactive to be found in nature, but it is found in practically all rocks as well as in sand, clays, and soils, combined either with oxygen as silica (SiO2, silicon dioxide) or with oxygen and other elements (e.g., aluminum, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium, or iron) as silicates. The oxidized form, as silicon dioxide and particularly as silicates, is also common in Earth's crust and is an important component of Earth's mantle.
https://www.britannica.com/science/silicon

Fiberglass is mostly silica.

Its the second most common element in soil.

You know you are not as correct as the man, the myth, the legend!

Scott Sterling?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:01:55
Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.

How could this be proof of anything? Let alone be "even more compelling"?
All it establishes is that you may not have found them yet, or you haven't looked in the right places.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 20:18:50
Scott Sterling?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0

Soccer is communist!

Not for Scott Sterling! The man, the myth and the legend.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 20:41:34
Not for Scott Sterling! The man, the myth and the legend.

The man...the myth...the legend is Texas Conservative.

Barbarian observes:
That evolutionary theory predicted many transitional forms before they were found is compelling.   Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.

QuoteHow could this be proof of anything? Let alone be "even more compelling"?

Because we have numerous transitional forms later found as predicted by evolutionary theory, but never a transitional that was not predicted by evolutionary theory.    Always where predicted, never where not predicted.  Such evidence is compelling.

QuoteAll it establishes is that you may not have found them yet, or you haven't looked in the right places.

As more an more fossils are found, and none that contradict the theory are found, it becomes more and more certain.  When I was an undergraduate, there were no land mammal/whale transitionals, no wasp/ant transitionals, no transitional frogs, no transitional turtles, .... (long list).   All of those are now in the record.   What is not in the record, is any transitional that doesn't fit evolutionary theory.

Barbarian says:

Quotegravity is a theory and not a law.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 17:07:13

QuoteWhat then is what is called Newton's law of gravitation

Theory.  Newton referred to it as "my theory."   It's not a law, because it predicts and explains gravity.

Newton's theory of gravity:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

QuoteIs this a scientific law or a theory?

A theory.  It's not uncommon for people to call it a law, but as you learned earlier, it is a theory, because it both predicts and explains phenomena.

"Newton's law of gravitation, statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them."

https://www.britannica.com/science/Newtons-law-of-gravitation

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 14:47:05

QuoteYou are still confused about faith.  We have faith in what we have come to accept as truth, not vice versa.

Likewise, I can say that you are still confused about faith.

I said:

"The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved. "

"Faith" is involved in the scientist accepting what he and his fellow scientists have put forth based on their scientific study and work with all the things that they take as evidence, that the world was framed by what they call the theory of evolution, as truth. "Faith" is involved, even while they deny it, for even they admit that their scientific work, even while they say is based on a ton of evidence, and even while they accept it as truth, they are not absolutely certain about it. Accepting such to be true involves "faith".

With the Christian, he accepts as true, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Without question, "faith" is involved.

The difference on the matter:

Scientists' faith comes from themselves, in their work. They have their trust and confidence in themselves.

Christians' faith comes from God and His words and work. They have their trust and confidence in God.   

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 15:08:43

QuotePerhaps you'll say that plants are made of dirt too.

Actually, plants are mostly composed of water and elements from the atmosphere.   Computers are, of course, made from minerals from the earth.

I thought you believe that the earth brought forth the plants, and that which you call the process as "evolution", same as with all the living creatures and man.

By the way, so computers were made from dirt. Is that dirt evolving into a computer? Of course you will say no. Computer are man made, intelligently designed by man for a purpose, according to the form and design he so intend to make it. He use and dispose of it as he pleases. 

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 15:08:43

Quoteor even man.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.


Populations evolve.   Individuals do not.

So, you are saying that you don't evolve as an individual, but together with the entire population of man, you all evolve? Interesting and confusing.

Is not the theory of evolution (by natural selection),  the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring?

And of course, since this process of evolution takes millions of years, and an individual ape for example only lives a relatively few years, no individual ape is said to have evolved into what we are today. So, when we say man evolved from apes, we say it in the context of the millions of years time frame.  But then, it is in the individual that change actually occur, and so is said to be that which has evolved.

Now, the verse does not say anything about mankind as having been created by evolution, and more so not a as a population. What we have in Gen. 2:7 is "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Well, the Christian scientist will say that, the process by which God formed the man of the dust of the ground is what you call evolution. Interestingly, you cited Gen 3:19, which tells us, if we were to relate that to science's evolution theory, that from where man had evolved from, when he dies, he will come to be what he originally was, that is dust. But what we can really understand from Gen. 3:19 is that man, when he dies, his body will return to dust or turn back to dust. This is so because, it was of dust that God had formed man. And we come to understand that what was formed in Gen. 2:7, is the body. Not that, man was formed by having dust evolve over millions or perhaps billions of years to be flesh, but that, God used the dust of the ground as material in creating the flesh, the body of man. Supernaturally that is. I understand it as I understand Jesus making wine out of water.     

Looking still into that, in both verses, nowhere is the idea of evolution. To be formed of the dust of the ground does not mean dust evolving into flesh, but that, God used dust as material to form the flesh body of man. It's like man using "dirt", as you put it, to form a computer. No evolution there. Now the flesh, as is made of dust, when it dies, disintegrates and decays into what it was made of, that is, according to scriptures, dust.       

Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

1. God said "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So GOD CREATED MAN in his own image..." Genesis 1:27.

2. JESUS said that God created man: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6.

"For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." Mark 13:19.

3. SUDDEN APPEARANCE of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers.

4. MAN'S RECORDED HISTORY only goes back to about 3,000 BC, the first dynasty of Egypt and China, agreeing with the Bible's flood date of 2418 BC.

5. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS says that systems go from order to disorder, yet evolution contradicts this by claiming systems go from "disorder to order".

6. DATING METHODS are greatly in error, giving an apparent age greater than the true age. This is due to unproven assumptions in the dating methods.

7. 220 EVIDENCES for a young earth of about 6,000 years old.

8. ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution.


9. Misplaced fossils. For example:

i) Human shoe print on trilobite fossil.

ii) Cave painting of brontosaurus in Zimbabwe.

iii) Polystrate tree trunks over many strata layers.

iv) Human and Dinosaur footprints in Turkmenia.


10. No beneficial mutations have given a new species.

There is no way to change the number of chromosomes in all the cells of an organism to change it to another species. For example, man has 46 chromosomes in every cell.

11. Complexity of sexual reproduction and eyes, can't be explained by evolution's random processes.


12. Bad social effects of evolution

a) "Survival of the fittest" of evolution justifies cunning, deceit, cruelty, animal behaviour and massacres, instead of God's law of love and service.

b) Militarism of Germany starting World War I and World War II came from them applying evolution to encourage survival of the "fittest" nation Germany. This allowed the massacre of 6 million Jews and the destruction of other countries. This was just an evolutionary conflict.

c) Spread of atheism.

d) Spread of Communism and the arms race.

e) Spread of immorality and divorce. People acting like animals is just evolutionary behaviour.

f) No idea of right or wrong because there is no authority of God to be accountable to.

g) Abortion. Evolutionists say, "Don't worry, the foetus is only in the fish stage."

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 23:20:13I said:

"The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved. "

I know what you said.  And it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Quote"Faith" is involved in the scientist accepting what he and his fellow scientists have put forth based on their scientific study and work with all the things that they take as evidence, that the world was framed by what they call the theory of evolution, as truth.

NO !  One examines the evidence and is either convinced that it is true or not.  That is not based upon faith; that is based upon the evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, then he believes it.  It does not work the other way.  And by the way, that should be true for the Christian as well.  He reads and studies the Scriptures.  God's word is sufficient in itself to convince one that it is truth.  Based upon that evidence one, having been convinced of its truth, has faith in God.

QuoteWith the Christian, he accepts as true, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Without question, "faith" is involved.

And again that is so completely wrong.  The word of God is the evidence of its truth. That is in fact the main purpose for most, if not all, of the prophecies in the OT.  Jesus, over and over, referred to the fulfilling of the Scriptures as the evidence of who He was.  Faith, believing in God and Christ, comes from being convinced of the truth of God's word, not the other way around.  Paul says in Romans 10, "Faith comes from hearing the word about Christ" (v.17).  Hearing doesn't come from faith; faith comes from hearing.  One believes what God says in the Scriptures, that is, one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God, i.e., for faith in God.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 05:29:27
One examines the evidence and is either convinced that it is true or not.  That is not based upon faith; that is based upon the evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, then he believes it. 

First of all, you can't have a belief in evidence. Evolutionists as well as creationists all acknowledge the evidence, they just differ in the interpretation of it.
They differ in what they think the evidence is evidence for.

But you guys made a point that there is no such thing as logical certainty in science. That means that no explanation for evidence can ever be certain.
According to science there is always a possibility that the evidence (or better said: the conclusions drawn from it) is wrong, how big or small that percentage is cannot be known.
So the fact that you decide to believe the evidence, or rather the conclusions drawn from it, is indeed an act of faith.

Quote from: AVZ on Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 06:04:11First of all, you can't have a belief in evidence.

One doesn't believe in evidence, one believes the evidence.  Perhaps your problem here is the same as Michael's; you, and he, simply do not understand the difference between believing something or someone and believing IN something or someone.  The basis for faith in God is being convinced the Bible presents the truth.  Being convinced that the Bible presents the truth is the only reason that one would ever believe in God.  Without that evidence, Judaism and/or Christianity would be just another religion out there with Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc.  It is not faith that makes the Bible true; rather its the truth of the Bible that is the basis for faith.

"What is an Oracle?"

Quote from: bbyrd009 on Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 08:26:01
"What is an Oracle?"

Business software.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 09:05:53
Business software.

lol awesome, now what does 'evasion' mean lol

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 06:27:48
One doesn't believe in evidence, one believes the evidence.

That's not it at all.
Both sides believe the evidence, but both sides differ in the interpretation of it.

Example:
The fossil record is evidence that one time species existed that not longer exist.
Both sides accept the evidence.

For the evolutionist the fossil record is a record of related evolution.
For the creationist the fossil record is a record of unrelated diversification.

I find it peculiar, and very telling, that every time you seem to think it appropriate that Michael or I "don't understand" things.
It's the typical behavior of the evolutionist, the moment someone disagrees with the interpretation, he or she is labelled ignorant or lacking understanding.

Fact is however, as is admitted in this thread already, that the evolutionist has no basis to claim ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the opposition, as it has been made clear that evolution is not a logical certainty.
So if evolution would be proven incorrect, which according to the evolutionist is wholly possible, then the evolutionist in fact is the ignorant and lacking party.

Your problem is that you are convinced science provides you the truth, however that same science tells you it could also be wrong.
Then, if you believe in science, you must believe that it it could be both right or wrong.

Those who follow scripture don't have that problem. Since it is the Word of God, and God never can be wrong, it can only be right.
So those who believe scripture only have one option: it is right.