You trust the scientific method becouse they can walk you thru it, no faith required. He has faith in the bible becouse he cant walk you thru the creation process or walk you thru the miracles brought forth by his bible he just wants you to assume it is true based on circular reasoning.
If they really think radiometric dating gives numbers a million times too big I've got a whole city to sell them right near Chernobyl. Half-lives are half lives. It ain't about faith.
I would point out that in fact we do not have "faith" in science, but we do TRUST it.
How is that different? If I have "faith" in something I will not question it, even if I do see evidence against it. If I "trust" something I will question it, but only if something raises my suspicion.
As an example: suppose your doctor says "and eat rotten meat every lunch!".
If you have FAITH in him, you will eat it. No matter what.
If you just trusted him, you will answer "are you insane?".
I think you missed Eric Hovind's point: He has faith in those things too, but what he is saying is that having faith is okay; that it is a normal way to hold things to be true.
A better rebuttal to his point would have been to point out the very large difference between trusting what can be verified (even if you haven't verified it yourself) and what cannot be verified, i.e. religious faith.
@Theophage - Well that's the thing: I BELIEVE it can be verified that the Earth orbits the sun, but I'll probably never see it verified myself. The first examples of my house and my doctor are, I agree, a little off the mark.
You are right but I think you could have done a better rebuttal than this. If I were you I would try again. Look at this video for an example. JVKjv6E4Jlw
I don't think it is faith to believe what scientists tell us. Scientists use evidence to promote their theory. This is contrary to the definition of faith, which is 'belief without evidence.'
The epistimology of the word faith is exactly as having faith in science. In many instances the word faithfulness can be applied, such as in many places in Hebrew 11. In fact the word "pistos" is used which is akin to veracity and certainty. It is only in the last 200 years or so that faith has evolved to mean blind faith.
2) Even in it's latin origin the word for trust, "fiducia, -ae" is different from the word for faith "fides, -ĕi"
3) there is no other kind of faith than blind faith, since no evidence exists for faith and every single moment of god not telling "you're wrong" is evidence against it.
@paskal007r Right, good catch. But i was referring to the Greek etymology, which would be more appropriate. The Greek lexicon does list "trusty" in it. If you see how it is applied in Hebrews 11 you see that it is akin to trustworthiness. In fact any look at a middle English dictionary or any good research dictionary will reveal that it has meant this until assumptions about what it meant has been for 200 years or so.
@MayonR Why should greek be more appropriate? I just needed to prove that it's not "just 200 years"... Also latin people recognized this difference and gospels confirm that a man of faith does not need evidence or doubt in john 20.
@paskal007r [[there is no other kind of faith than blind faith, since no evidence exists for faith ]] The evidence for faith is faith itself. Or maybe you mean what we have faith in? Thats debatable.
@MayonR "The evidence for faith is faith itself. Or maybe you mean what we have faith in? Thats debatable." if you mean evidence for faith itself to exist, yes, you are right. If you mean for the object of faith to be true, then no, it's not enough.
He says while using a computer, the internet, a video camera and some other fancy looking pieces of technology.. I suppose god just made all those things appear for him... what has science ever done for him, right? How does he know it works?
I think perhaps a more appropriate word is TRUST. I trust in Science because it works, it is demonstrably true,just as the medical care I receive can and has been demonstrated to work.
Look up the word,
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
This distinction is important.
bassmanco 2 months ago
@Venaloid
Actually you are confusing faith with trust.
You trust the scientific method becouse they can walk you thru it, no faith required. He has faith in the bible becouse he cant walk you thru the creation process or walk you thru the miracles brought forth by his bible he just wants you to assume it is true based on circular reasoning.
Faith vs trust.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
If they really think radiometric dating gives numbers a million times too big I've got a whole city to sell them right near Chernobyl. Half-lives are half lives. It ain't about faith.
akylae101 3 months ago
I would point out that in fact we do not have "faith" in science, but we do TRUST it.
How is that different? If I have "faith" in something I will not question it, even if I do see evidence against it. If I "trust" something I will question it, but only if something raises my suspicion.
As an example: suppose your doctor says "and eat rotten meat every lunch!".
If you have FAITH in him, you will eat it. No matter what.
If you just trusted him, you will answer "are you insane?".
paskal007r 3 months ago
@paskal007r
Ramen!
akylae101 3 months ago
The only loose ends that need to be tied up here are those two dimbulbs sitting at that desk. And tied tightly.
bvwatcher2 3 months ago
Accepting the validity of peer reviewed publications is not analogous to faith.
HConstantine 3 months ago
now I know where Bill O'Riley gets his tides information. Keep cutting them out of the herd, and pointing out their defects. Thanks for the vid.
rollofnickles 3 months ago
Good one! ; )
FishHeadSalad 3 months ago
I think you missed Eric Hovind's point: He has faith in those things too, but what he is saying is that having faith is okay; that it is a normal way to hold things to be true.
A better rebuttal to his point would have been to point out the very large difference between trusting what can be verified (even if you haven't verified it yourself) and what cannot be verified, i.e. religious faith.
Theophage 3 months ago
@Theophage - Well that's the thing: I BELIEVE it can be verified that the Earth orbits the sun, but I'll probably never see it verified myself. The first examples of my house and my doctor are, I agree, a little off the mark.
Venaloid 3 months ago
You are right but I think you could have done a better rebuttal than this. If I were you I would try again. Look at this video for an example. JVKjv6E4Jlw
michalchik 3 months ago
I don't think it is faith to believe what scientists tell us. Scientists use evidence to promote their theory. This is contrary to the definition of faith, which is 'belief without evidence.'
mushroomstone 3 months ago
The epistimology of the word faith is exactly as having faith in science. In many instances the word faithfulness can be applied, such as in many places in Hebrew 11. In fact the word "pistos" is used which is akin to veracity and certainty. It is only in the last 200 years or so that faith has evolved to mean blind faith.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR
1) maybe you mean "Etymology" of the word
2) Even in it's latin origin the word for trust, "fiducia, -ae" is different from the word for faith "fides, -ĕi"
3) there is no other kind of faith than blind faith, since no evidence exists for faith and every single moment of god not telling "you're wrong" is evidence against it.
paskal007r 3 months ago
@paskal007r Right, good catch. But i was referring to the Greek etymology, which would be more appropriate. The Greek lexicon does list "trusty" in it. If you see how it is applied in Hebrews 11 you see that it is akin to trustworthiness. In fact any look at a middle English dictionary or any good research dictionary will reveal that it has meant this until assumptions about what it meant has been for 200 years or so.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Why should greek be more appropriate? I just needed to prove that it's not "just 200 years"... Also latin people recognized this difference and gospels confirm that a man of faith does not need evidence or doubt in john 20.
that's all.
paskal007r 3 months ago
@paskal007r [[there is no other kind of faith than blind faith, since no evidence exists for faith ]] The evidence for faith is faith itself. Or maybe you mean what we have faith in? Thats debatable.
MayonR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MayonR "The evidence for faith is faith itself. Or maybe you mean what we have faith in? Thats debatable." if you mean evidence for faith itself to exist, yes, you are right. If you mean for the object of faith to be true, then no, it's not enough.
I meant it in the second way.
paskal007r 3 months ago
The only trouble with this is that there are Christians who still believe in a geocentric universe.
ThomasTrue 3 months ago
He says while using a computer, the internet, a video camera and some other fancy looking pieces of technology.. I suppose god just made all those things appear for him... what has science ever done for him, right? How does he know it works?
kelarael 3 months ago
I think perhaps a more appropriate word is TRUST. I trust in Science because it works, it is demonstrably true,just as the medical care I receive can and has been demonstrated to work.
IntelligentProbe 3 months ago 2
I think you give him too much credit, he probably believes in a geocentric universe.
tacojohn9 3 months ago 2