Hey, Coyoyeman. Haven’t posted with you for a while.
I have been to this site from our last discussion, and again, now. I think you need to back off from saying, “...points are rebutted...” That site more that rebuts, rather just denies. I certainly haven’t read it all, because there’s too much, but every one I look at, they (he? I guess it’s by Mark Isaac), he usually just puts forth his ideas, and sets up his own straw men arguments to knock down, as though they were serious arguments, and all that any creationist has. Seems rather weak, since most of these arguments are about philosophy, rather than science. The problems seem to arise when dime-store philosophers claim to be scientists.
Now, you have to admit that in the above article, (assuming it’s quoted accurately)that is not science, but philosophy or metaphysics. I’d like to think it’s math, but I know it’s not that either. -Glenn
I agree. The conclusion of that blog is:
But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.
I entirely agree with you that this is not science, but philosophy or metaphysics. And I must add, it is not even accurate.
But it also seems that the blog is using the term "evolution" with the creationist definition of "everything in science that we disagree with!"