Fair enough, the math analogy was false, but the one about a history book stands. I was referring to Genesis, which is a history book. The Nicene Creed is what has been agreed on are solid doctrines of faith in the bible. People deny it, of course, but it can be shown in the bible conclusively why they are incorrect.
The claim that Genesis is a history book is indeed quite debatable. Is the Hindu Baghivad Gita a history book? How about the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Even if one was to agree that Genesis was a history book, not all history books are created equal - and like the other alleged "history" books of ancient religion we have significant reason to doubt their claims to the supernatural/miraculous. Since most of these hundreds of ancient religions have creation stories, which one should we believe and why? Further, why not stop being gullible and withhold believing any of them until we investigate? Regarding the Nicene Creed, why would you bring it up? Faith isn't a pathway to truth, nor is it a reliable method for separating fact from fiction. So the analogy falls very short. There is just no sound correlation between questions of science and questions of "faith" - especially since faith is most often fixed
and unwavering. It's very starting point is a conclusion, rather than a question as in science. Sure, you can "show me in the bible" why you think someone is incorrect (conclusively? I think not) but that's just begging the question as to the claim you started with regarding scientists having "evolution bias" (which is nonsense).
I asked you specific questions pertaining to your charge that scientists who disagree with your personal belief about the age of the earth are "cherry picking" and I drew an analogy regarding Christian cherry picking of bible passages. I also asked you a direct question regarding your charge of cherry picking toward those scientists. Was this answer ignoring that question? I can understand if it was but if you're going to accuse scientists of something please provide a link or some specific evidence for that assertion.
Exodus, which is also a history book, says 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them". Verses like that are numerous, of course, and one has to reject them in order to accept evolution. You asking me about my cherry picking is really off the subject. For all you know I may enjoy rape, etc, so you don't have proof that I cherry pick, that would be a whole other conversation.
This is a big red herring. I asked you for specific evidence of scientists "cherry picking" and all you can do is quote the bible? Would you accept such reasoning if a Muslim quoted their "history book" along this same line of reasoning? I smell intellectual dishonesty coming. Btw, it's also true that "one has to reject" lots of other claimed holy "history" books from other religions. But of course, you haven't demonstrated these religious books are "history books" anymore than the other religions have demonstrated their claims to knowledge of ancient history. If you believe the bible, then don't you believe that men often lie
in order to get their way? How about lying when writing "history" books which makes claims to the supernatural and miraculous - have men forged such things in history? I'm sorry, the bible is not a "history book" in the manner by which you are implying. By your logic we should accept every religious text as a history book b/c they mention historical places/peoples.
It sounds like you started with your conclusion and are now working backwards.
This charge can go the opposite way. In other words, scientists who want to keep consistent with the view of evolution may indeed do this. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer
Another lazy approach. I'm sorry, I'm going to need you to be more specific in your points - as opposed to just posting some generic Wiki link. What specifically is the point you are trying to make as pertaining to this subject of science and YEC?
Indeed I am. My presupposition is that the bible is correct, although that's not to say that I can't inspect the possibility that it isn't.
I predicted correctly. So you've started with your conclusion (that the bible is "correct" - or rather that your interpretation
of the bible is the correct) but why would you do this? Furthermore, it doesn't sound like a pre "supposition". It sounds like a precommitment.
Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc). I have, and it would be similar to the charge that I may be false because of my bias.
Interesting. So now you've both admitted that you started with your conclusion (your interpretation of the bible) and
that you are practicing bias when it comes to these subjects. Do you think these are good things to practice when it comes to the pursuit of separating fact from fiction? If a Muslim practiced your kind of thinking would it be very reliable in getting him closer to knowledge of the world? I think you can see the answer is no. So why continue this way? Do you even care whether or not your beliefs are true or are you just looking to be comfortable with what you assumed from the outset?
My observation was not ad hominem
I've noticed that this can be quite murky to prove. I could proceed now to go on a tangent about how you evolutionists probably soil yourselves when in a real debate with a creationist, but if I did that, could you ultimately show that it was in order to prove you wrong, or that it was merely an observation?
I'm not quite following you here at all. So you'll have to explain better. However, regarding this "you evolutionsts" charge, you haven't asked me what my beliefs were yet. So why assume? Furthermore, plenty of professing Christians accept the evidence for evolution (as I posted earlier). So, this name calling is getting you nowhere - but even if you could show all the evidence for evolution false it still wouldn't get you one bit closer to proving a deity/God or proving your personal theology. AT BEST, you would simply have to admit that you don't know how we go here, and stop there.
No I'm not leveling attacks at anyone other than you in this discussion. You have made multiple claims/charges against scientists and I've asked for some evidence for these claims (not broad statistical assertions but specifics). Are you just going to avoid the call for evidence to these claims of yours?
Which claims? I told you about Marc Hauser and Paul Kammerer, I'm not sure if there's some number of people you need? If some other claim, be specific.
Nooo, you haven't "told me" about them. All you've done is post a link to Wikipedia without making any further statements. How would you feel if I did this same thing back to you? You need to be specific as to the arguments you are making. Furthermore, showing one or two scientists to be in error/or having done wrong etc won't help you in taking down the whole of a scientific endeavor. You do know that, don't you?
How come you're not doing this with the germ theory of decease, the "theory" of gravity, or the shape of the earth? There is still a Flat Earth Society you know.
It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible
The point of mentioning axioms was so that I could show everybody has a bias. You keep mentioning personal interpretation: Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Christ also had the idea that the earth is not billions of years old, and why should I call myself a Christian if I don't believe him?
That's the problem with your thinking. It's based on an assumption! Instead of admitting you don't know, you just assume. But why? Why do that if you really care whether or not your beliefs are true? You aren't believing "Jesus". You're believing hear-say from an old book that you've read, and been told about. For someone who rejects evolution it doesn't seem that your standard of evidence is that high. The NT wasn't even written by eye-witnesses and it contradicts itself all over the place. But besides that why would you believe it in the first place? Why believe ANY book that makes claims to the supernatural and then base your entire life upon it (including how you interpret scientific data)? It's seems quite hypocritical, since you wouldn't lower your standard of evidence in this way for a fast talking salesman at your door - and lots of other religions practice this same kind of thinking to their peril. So why not stop the big assumption?