[photon]

Originally Posted by Ace

I've never heard this argument made, this is just my own thought: But given the Biblical account of the flood, assuming that it occurred, this would fundamentally alter Science's dating techniques wouldn't it? That volume of water being unleashed on the earth would date the topography of the land/fossils, etc. Therefore science itself cannot disprove some particular Christian interpretations of the age of the planet, because science does not take into account the impact of the flood on it's dating calculations?

I don't think the dating techniques work in such a way that a global flood would alter them to make every single different dating technique (which all rely on different kinds of observations and physical processes) all look older in exactly the same amount. The power of consilience should not be underestimated.

Plus a global flood wouldn't impact many dating mathods like rate of radioactive decay, and would be clearly visible in the geological record.

Originally Posted by Ace

You also can't prove or disprove Biblical Faith with science, because at the very core of the Christian Faith is that it requires "Faith" (these are fundamental principles in the Biblical accounts). Basically if you believe in the God of the Bible, it states clearly that it requires "Faith", and therefore cannot be figured out through analysis.

That's generally true, though there are Christians and other religious people who would disagree, seeing as they spend a LOT of effort to try and prove their beliefs.

Of course you can say this about every religious faith, so that means they are either all equally valid, all equally invalid, or if one is valid and the rest aren't then it's a random crapshoot and such a god is unjust (which may be, people are born into dictatorships sometimes).

Faith as an epistemology fails, because it boils down to believing what one wants to believe, which clearly doesn't work in the physical world.

Originally Posted by Ace

Personally I don't understand why those on the "Science" side or the "Creationist" side would even care to debate. The creationist side is supposed to believe in the requirement of Faith, therefore it cannot ever be unconditionally proven to anyone, and on the Science side they believe everything can be proven from analysis (requires no faith). These are just different methodologies for how to explain life, to me they don't seem possible to debate because of the core assumptions.

Sounds like Non-overlapping magisteria.

In one way I agree, I think once a believer tries to enter into apologetics they've already admitted defeat in a way, better to simply believe.

But then we're back to all beliefs being equal, and we know that that isn't the universe we live in. No matter how much one believes a coffee enema is going to cure autism, it's not.