You said: Since there are virtually no scientifically confirmed observations (in other words, facts) regarding many Biblical claims, science simply can’t respond to them.And that would include the example you cite here.
You would do well to read “The Signature of God” by Grant Jeffrey. You are under-informed.
You said: Since there are virtually no scientifically confirmed observations (in other words, facts) regarding many Biblical claims, science simply can’t respond to them.
You obviously didn’t read the link I posted for you. “Science” will not respond. The link is there for you to read about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TIME REVERSALS. Empirical. You can measure it. You.
You said: The only confusion I’ve seen is in the minds of folks such as yourself who are dead-set and determined
Until you disprove the claim of empirical evidence of time reversals in the link I posted, it is you sir, who is “dead-set and determined” in your ways and beliefs, and Genesis is not mistaken about special creation. “Scientists” who support evolution are.
You said: “most large Christian denominations teach what’s called theistic evolutionism”
They’re wrong. The church in America is shot. Divorce, porn, lack of witnessing, sin, corruption, idolatry are rampant among Christians. That they would make such a giant error in something so basic, is about right. Jesus said we “will know them by their fruits”, and their fruits are rotted.
My normal rule here is to deal only with arguments and data that are actually presented, and to ignore "arguments by link".
It think it's unproductive trying to chase chimera down some Internet rabbit hole.
So, if you want to select data and arguments from your links, and present them here, then I can explain to you if, or why, they are wrong.
ROTB: "You are under-informed."
I understand there is a whole anti-evolution industry out there, producing books & web sites, supplying speakers for meetings, and that some even build their careers on arguing the case against Evolution to friendly audiences.
I understand that arguing with such people is like trying to convince a Ford salesman that Chevy builds better trucks.
No way is he ever going to admit such a thing!
There are also folks -- harder to find -- who fight the good fight, putting out real data in response to anti-evolutionists claims.
But you know how they say it, "a lie can get half way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on."
So it's not at all clear to me if the defenders of science have developed cogent responses to every anti-evolutionist claim.
All that said, I don't do "arguments by link".
If you want to argue some point here on Free Republic, then bring out your data and make your case.
ROTB: "You obviously didn’t read the link I posted for you."
I don't do "arguments by link".
ROTB: "“Science” will not respond. The link is there for you to read about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TIME REVERSALS. Empirical. You can measure it. You."
Bring out your data. Make your case. Here, on Free Republic. You can do it. You, pal.
ROTB: "Until you disprove the claim of empirical evidence of time reversals in the link I posted, it is you sir, who is “dead-set and determined” in your ways and beliefs"
There is nothing here to disprove.
You've presented no data, and made no argument.
I am only "dead-set and determined" not to waste my time chasing chimeras down Internet rabbit holes.
ROTB: "Genesis is not mistaken about special creation.
“Scientists” who support evolution are."
Science, by definition does not "support" special creation or special anything else.
Science requires data / facts / confirmed observations before it can even begin to work on some natural phenomenon.
The claim by some anti-evolutionists in support of their interpretation of the Bible, that they have "found" some new data which science has "mysteriously" overlooked, strikes me as no more scientifically credible than some other assertions.
ROTB: "They’re wrong. The church in America is shot. Divorce, porn, lack of witnessing, sin, corruption, idolatry are rampant among Christians."
Any church can eliminate 100% of those problems if it simply expels all its members who have them.
And that's just what some churches do.
Others take a more welcoming approach, and try to work with real people's real problems.
But none of that has anything to do with the validity, or lack of validity, of the theory of evolution.
So your argument is just a red herring.