[chronic_loser]

And if you have the eyes to observe what is around you in nature, and the ears to "hear" what that means, then you can rationally, "objectively verify" the dual account we have from God Himself, revealed in the Book of Scripture (revelation by Creator), and the Book of Nature (revelation by Creation). Both accounts accord beautifully.>>

Uhhhh... No. The "Book of Nature", for example, does not "accord beautifully" with the Noachian Flood of the "Book of Scripture", for just one example of many. >>>>>>>

precisely the type of sneering halfway informed pompous crap I have heard a thousand times. Usually from someone who has taken freshman chemistry and read exceprts from Henry Morris (from the skeptic tank..., where else?) and assumes he therefore knows all there is to know regarding biblical cosmology. Gratuitous insults and unbacked accusations only work when you are dealing with people who are confused by what "phyla" means.

If you want a personal, up close demonstration of how empirical science is completely baseless as an epistemological foundation, all you have to do is ask.

Empiricism is NOT science, and the smarter scientists know that. It is only the dishonest and dullards who pretend otherwise.

[djf]

Well said. I will offer an expanded view.

A Yanamamo tribesman comes up from the Amazon. He hears about brilliant men at a local university. He enters the math department and walks up to the desk of the man who is heralded as being the best mind at the university.


He asks the prof "What will I have for lunch tomorrow?"

The math prof tells him to get lost. The native insists that the man is deemed wise, so should know or be able to predict the answer.

Now the natives question is a valid question. And we will someday know the answer.

But math can only answer math questions. Physics can answer (some) questions about particles and waves, but none about art or Martha Stewart's housekeeping methods.

So searching for emperical knowledge has somewhat painted us into a corner.

I remember Art Linkletter when he used to interview children. The amount of wisdom and truth that came from some of those toddlers mouths was way beyond many things I've heard from Nobel prize winners!

Just the nature of things, IMHO.

[Right Wing Professor]

precisely the type of sneering halfway informed pompous crap I have heard a thousand times

And that was the high point of the post.

The rest is a large lump of content-free ordure; one is surprised only at the honesty of his FReepername.

Loser

[Ichneumon]

[The "Book of Nature", for example, does not "accord beautifully" with the Noachian Flood of the "Book of Scripture", for just one example of many.]

precisely the type of sneering halfway informed pompous crap I have heard a thousand times. Usually from someone who has taken freshman chemistry and read exceprts from Henry Morris (from the skeptic tank..., where else?) and assumes he therefore knows all there is to know regarding biblical cosmology. Gratuitous insults and unbacked accusations only work when you are dealing with people who are confused by what "phyla" means. If you want a personal, up close demonstration of how empirical science is completely baseless as an epistemological foundation, all you have to do is ask. Empiricism is NOT science, and the smarter scientists know that. It is only the dishonest and dullards who pretend otherwise.

You know, the decaffeinated brands taste just as good.

Now, if you're done with your own "sneering halfway informed pompous crap", did you have any specific disagreement with the substance of my post? Or were you just looking for an excuse to make an unfocused rant so you could get it off your chest?