Quote:

theory9 said:
Faith and logic are polar opposites--faith requires devotion, logic requires questioning. Your attempt (not the first) to marry the two is puzzling; you aren't stupid. Yet you use the same hackneyed arguments ("indisputable proof") that you so rudely decry. Everything you posted assumes what you are trying to prove.



Your essentially saying that God can't logically exist, which is fallacy.

Quote:

If a scientist (or anyone really) approaches a mysterious situation with the answer in mind, objectivity is lost. Now, if one's aim is to prove that the Wall of Jericho existed, it isn't that hard (nevermind that proving the Wall of Jericho ever happened doesn't independently prove the existence of God).



The dig-site in Telles wasn't actually looked for. But moreover, simply because the digger can have a bias, that doesn't mean he can't make legitimate discoveries. I can even admit that for evolutionist archeologists, geologists, and paleontologists--Although, as I've pointed out in the past, it's not simply bias motivations that make me dubious of their discoveries, but also their methods of discovery. They're mostly unreliable. Anyway, your statement is pretty much implying that discoveries made through a bias outlook aren't real discoveries at all, and that's patently false. The evidence from the sites indicating flood and miraculous historical events aren't fake. Secularist scientists even admit to that (although, they don't believe miracles happened). Hell! In the case of Jericho, there was more shown bias on the part of a secularist archeologist than than the Creationist ones. Dr. Kenyon, a secularist, concluded that the rehabitation site in Telles wasn't as old as Garstang or Wood proclaimed (6000 years) because there wasn't a certain type of pottery present that was popular around that era. I don't think I need to tell you how weak that argument is. But what makes this situation warrant more scrutiny is the fact that the pottery from that time was present and she simply "missed" it in her findings until Wood came around 40 years later and found it.

Quote:

Do you think the people who fund these digs do so with the goal of attaining knowledge? That simply isn't how funded research works; whoever pays the purse gets to decide the slant through which lens the project results will be shown.



The exact same thing could be said for evolutionists.

Quote:

My only point on the Catholic Church (and as a tangent all organized religion) is that religious morality is often trumped by politics and a contentious desire to maintain the status quo. There are numerous examples of this throughout history, and the Nazi Germany is one.



I can agree with the Catholic Church falling victim of this to some extent in the past. However, there's simply no proof of this happening with Nazi Germany.

Quote:

My opinions of religion are what they are, but the facts before you are undeniable; what was distressing was the way in which you danced around the parts that couldn't be explained away.



I didn't dance around anything, I simply said it didn't happen and that the sources you provided were based on inconclusive evidence. So Pope Pius shook hands with Der Furor and gave a Nazi salute. Big deal. So did half the people who visted Germany at that time--Especially foreign diplomats present in the country.

Quote:

You're young, and religion has provided you with the answers to questions about the world. Cool. But nevertheless, it represents only an opinion, and the vicious way in which you try to alchemize your opinion into some factual truth is fairly boring.



You know, I could say exactly the same thing for secularist scientists--The one's you agree with. I've already tried to express exactly how they're on no higher a level than you say I'm on.

Quote:

I've seen people on both sides of the religious issue do this, and it is always distasteful no matter who's doing it. Rather than looking for facts to support a truth, you look for facts to support your truth. In that sense, it is the reason why talking to you has become a waste of my time.



This is speculative on your part. Simply because I've provided evidence regarding what I believe does not mean I've only looked towards that evidence, and futher claim it to be the only evidence worth noting. I've studied evolution as well as creationism and I've tried to express the elements of evidence that either provide. Simply because I find one has offered more than another and come to a conclusion that creationsim makes more sense, that does not mean I have a bias.

Quote:

Should you have something level-headed to say, I'm all ears.



And you create the standard for what is and is not level-headed. Thus, I call bullshit. I find I have been very level-headed.