(October 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm)Meatball Wrote: That is so astoundingly stupid I'm not even sure what to say...
Evidence isn't "wrong" or "right". Evidence can be explained as something supporting a statement. Whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant to the truth of the evidence. Think of a murder trial. Both sides will present evidence to plead their case. Obviously both sides cannot be correct, but that doesn't that one side's evidence is secretly faith just because it's wrong.
I don't disagree with you. I was merely trying to look at things from EvF's point of view. He is the one who said:
"If their directions are telling the truth and are correct, then it's evidence based and not faith-based. If they aren't telling the truth of have got the directions wrong, then my belief in what I think to be evidence is mistaken so my belief is actually faith-based."
Maybe I confused the issued by my use of the word "prove" in my question. I did not mean "prove" in the sense that it appears to have been taken. It was an unfortunate use of the word here.
EvF, your answer confused me more.
Let's take the fossil record. It is evidence, plain and simple. I think we would agree on that. But evidence of what? I look at the fossil record and say it is evidence of the Biblical flood. You look at the fossil record and say that it is evidence of evolution (common descent). Furthermore, it seem to me that you would see my conclusion (Biblical flood happened) as "faith-based" and your conclusion (evolution/common descent happened) as "evidence-based". Am I correct? If so, how do you determine which conclusion is "faith-based" and which is "evidence-based"?
