Unless you prove theist wrong then you would have me indulge in factual fallacies simply to favor atheistic views which would be the antithesis of objective logic.
There is no way to scientifically disprove even something as logically bankrupt as Young Earth Creationism. An incredibly cruel and unusual god could have created the Earth 5000 years ago, complete with fossils and other evidence of a much older Earth, and surrounded this Earth with a simulation of the universe that yields exactly the same signs we see scientifically as real planets, real stars, real galaxies, all very old. This is not the sign of an omnibenevolent god. It is the sign of a morally bankrupt god. This view of young earth creationism verges on solipsism, another non-scientific concept that cannot be falsified. Young earth creationism, like solipsism, offers nothing.
In order to "prove religion wrong" there would have to be a falsifiable statement in religion. There isn't, at least not in a religion consistent with what we perceive to be reality. Which gets back to something TravisW just posted:
Axiomatic logic is actually sort of flawed because it's based on the assumption that at least one axiom is true, and the degree to which something can be accepted as truth varies based on who is doing the thinking.
Because so much hinges on the basic assumptions of some scientific theory, scientists test and retest and re-retest those assumptions. There is however one assumption that is at the root of all science that cannot be tested: That what we perceive as reality *is* a reflection of reality. Science is blind to the possibility that the world we appear to live on and the universe we appear to live in is nothing but an extremely elaborate hoax.
Back to Saquist:
... atheistic views ... atheistic philosophy
You appear to think that evolution is inherently an atheistic philosophy. It is not. While there are very few biologists who are also young earth creationists, there are plenty of deeply religious biologists who have no problem reconciling their religious and scientific views. Per this study,
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf, about 61% of college biology professors are atheists or agnostics, the remaining 39% believing in God or some higher power.
if you criticize evolution negatively, then you aren't apt to criticize it in the first place.
That makes no sense.
just look at all the biologists who speak against evolution now and how they're regarded by the scientific community, and contrast it to how those who spoke against piltdown man and the other hoaxes were regarded.. the similarity is unsetteling.
That is not only a non sequitur, it is false. It was scientists who showed Piltdown Man to be a hoax.
Given the utterly confused and logically invalid nature of your post, I take it that with this shrug your are acknowledging that you have nothing of value to contribute.
Regarding scientific hoaxes such as Piltdown Man: Yes, they do exist. Some people see creating a hoax as an easier path to fame and glory than is hard, honest work. Religious hoaxes also exist, and in far greater abundance than scientific hoaxes. That shouldn't be all that surprising given that the potentials for fame, glory, and money are far greater with religious hoaxes than with scientific hoaxes. The existence of such hoaxes, scientific or religious, does nothing to disprove science or religion. All they show is that some people are evil and that other people are gullible.
). The difference is that people care less about what keeps their feet on the ground and more about eternal existence, which is why you have more people denying evolution than gravity.
