badgerx16

Could you repeat the rebuttal ?

And, why is that a problem ?

The C of E accepts the Theory of Evolution.

This thread has caused the Matrix to crash, but once it has rebooted I'll get back to you if there is a reasonably recent restore point.

Depeche Mode wrote a song about that.

Alannis Morisette played God in Dogma. Just saying.

"But what is truth ?" John 13:38

What do Wener Heisenberg, Max Planck, Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell, and Arthur Holley Compton ( winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize for Physics ), have in common ? Clue, they all had faith.

In real terms, faith is trusting in something in advance of the presentation or revelation of evidence. However, yet again you fall into the trap of assuming that the only evidence that is valid is the evidence you personally accept.

To sum up the risks of Matthew's position regarding demonstrable evidence and accepted science I will put out one word........ Phlogiston

Faith.

Good, but emphasising that out of 1600 road fatalities in the UK last year, only 4 were caused by cyclists.

Maybe they should just have totally caved in on day 1.

Still means Putin can claim victory.

Better than a warning of yellow rain I suppose.

Argue your point with the millions of people of faith, who are clearly, ( by your definition ), irrational. To them the "liklihood of truth" is 100%, and the "evidence" is overwhelming and irrefutable.

And that response is irrelevant You are arguing that logic and "evidence" are all that matters, and that "faith" in something is trumped by such. Using the popularity of something to disprove your point is entirely valid in this instance. You cannot dismiss belief when debating about belief systems.

And your point is .... ?

Perhaps we are a quantum entanglement.

He enabled the concepts of Space and Time to be constructed by the Human psyche.

Matthew, it is quite simple. Regardless of your logical, scientific, evidence based view of reality, millions, if not billions of people have faith in something science and logic are unable to prove. Some of their positions are contradictory, some are simply slightly differing interpretations of a shared starting point. To these people the thing they believe in and have faith in is as real as the keyboard you are typing your responses on. There is absolutely nothing you can do or say that will alter this 'reality'.

What a way to spend your birthday !

1) Try to argue the point. Why does it matter that their accounts differ, the followers of each hold faith, therefore destroying your argument. 2) No.

"Demonstrable evidence".

Hallelujah !