[tacticalogic]

The point is that one cannot be taken seriously when under the color of science he disputes the supernatural because science limits its own inquiry to the natural (methodological naturalism.)

That pretty much makes "creation science" non-sequitur.

[Alamo-Girl]

My apology, tacticallogic. I should have pinged you to my general reply at 437.

I have one additional reply however to both your and js1138's posts. Namely, that we have been down this road many times before.

The issue goes to how we personally know what we know and how certain we are that we know it.

For some, their most certain knowledge derives from sensory perception and reasoning.

And for others (I am one) - their most certain knowledge derives in the Spirit, the revelations of God. Thus I trust what God says no matter what my physical senses are saying and whether it seems "logical" to me.

And of course there are many shades of gray between those two extremes.

Bottom line, I cannot meld into you so that you can understand what I know to be Truth. The best I can do is to describe it as plainly as possible.