Replies

"The angry evolutionists were especially interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social policy message in that agenda."

It doesn't matter how many faulty measuring tools used for dating. It doesn't matter how many atheists and ignorant polly parrots echo evolution ... it doesn't make it so. Truth is not dependent on numbers of people believing it. The evidence of God is obvious to all that wish to see it. Either you believe an unlimited God who can do anything, as stated in the Bible or you believe limited man who denies Him with a diametrically opposing theory. There is NO middle ground or compromise when it comes to truth. Compromised truth is NO longer truth.

> Either you believe an unlimited God who can do anything, as stated in the Bible or you believe limited man who denies Him with a diametrically opposing theory.

OK. So, the moon remains in orbit about the Earth not because of the interplay between gravity and inertia, but because God is running it around on a little track. And any variation from that view is a limited Man-centric view that denies God.

Either you believe an unlimited God who can do anything, as stated in the Bible or you believe limited man who denies Him with a diametrically opposing theory.

If you want to formulate this a diametric opposition, wrt to which there is no possible compromise ever, then your problem isn't with "a" theory but rather with all scientific theories. All scientific theories implicitly assume the regularity and law abiding character of nature, i.e. that miracles don't occur within their applicable domain.

This, of course, is an "operational" assumption, made simply for the purpose of doing science, and not therefore a direct challenge to extra-scientific claims. But accepting this understanding in any form would necessarily eliminate "diametric opposition" and I suppose amount to a "compromise".

By your "logic" the theory of photosynthesis, for instance, denies God since God certainly could change (or replace with sheer miracle) the chemical reactions occurring in cells and their plastids. But then militant, fulminating extremism invariably leads to stupid results.

Are you still trying to justify your LIE that Antony Flew rejected evolution even though it is very clear that he did no such thing? Or are you still trying to justify your lie that you had never said anything about Antony Flew in the first place even though I just linked to a previous posting where you in fact did say something about him?

Or are you just here to reinforce my position that "creationist" is a synonym for "liar"?

Other creationists here: any of you want to try defending nmh's very clear denial of reality? Not gotten any takers thus far; it's like every creationist out there absolutely refuses to acknowledge dishonesty from their own side (with a very few known exceptions, none of whom called out nmh on his lies).