Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22
I value testable evidence and theories with explanatory and predictive power over the belief in the truth of the content of ancient texts because it says so in these texts. If that makes me biased that's fine.
I reread the post and I agree absolute truth was a poor term. What I meant by people who take the bible to be absolute truth are people who believe that most or all of what is described in the old testament really happened and who base their estimate of the age of the earth and universe mostly or strictly on the narrative of the old testament.
Can you ever be sure of anything then?
Yeah, you can be sure. But certainty wouldn't mean "truth" and evidence wouldn't mean "proof". It would point to being certain about knowledge, but knowledge isn't an absolute. There is no problem about being certain of current geological theories, but at the same time also being certain that they will at some point be refined and changed. That's the main principle behind science, that knowledge is a thing that can, will and should progress. It isn't even a controversial principle, really.
And why are they superior to YEC? Because they work, they predict stuff, they explain stuff in ways that are actually useful and the theories behind them have survived decades of testing and falsification attempts.
If someone has to flee into solipsism, qualia or radical skepticism (only accepting the currently observed / anything can be seen to be true / knowledge is impossible), then they've forfeited debate, because dialogue is impossible.