Here is my point ...."trying to claim the evidence shows the earth and the universe are 6000 years old is just plain nuts and inherently anti-science".
Throw out the 'just plain nuts' if you find it offensive. That shortens it to..."trying to claim the evidence shows the earth and the universe are 6000 years old is inherently anti-science."
Leading up to that I indicated that believing God just made it all look older by performing miracles at least accepts that science is correct in it's analysis and interpretation of the evidence and data.
Instead of addressing this you chose to lecture and scold me using phrases like "it looks like something between a sneer and propaganda" and "And if they *are* miracles, then science won't be able to explain them, by definition. Why you feel that means the word must be used as a perjorative is another matter..". And that is the game you are playing.
posted on 10/26/2006 6:51:31 AM PDT
(ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
I agree that trying to hold to Biblical literalism of the strictest kind, with full knowledge of the scientific data, and not making any concession to the knowledge of discrepancies, *would* be nuts.
In other words, so far as that goes, we agree: except that I am aware that many people who dispute evolution do it in ignorance of the scientific data. And many of the others do it because they implicitly allow for the possibility of supernatural interference, or miracles.
But it sure looked like, from your choice of words, that any mention of miracles or the supernatural, was nuts. And in particular, that miracles are a sort of last-ditch attempt to defend something which has long been discredited or disproven. And it is *THAT* which I was objecting to.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson