[I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but one is definitely anti-science when he says he will not accept a position no matter how much scientific evidence there is for that position and states that the bible is supreme over science texts.]
ah, but here’s where your argument breaks down- We don’t have to base our objections on the fact that we think God did it. We have enough counter scientific evidneces to suggest that infact an Intelligent Designer might indeed have done it. You can poresent evidneces you think suggest the earth is old, and we can present evidneces that might suggest something else. We think that science will show the bible to be factual- there is nothign wrong with that belief- just as there was nothign wrong with the belief that science will show suggestions that naturalism might be a truism. Some feel that there is enough evidence to suggest this- others think that the evidences provided are a huge stretch of the imagination and nothing more than a personal opinion that does indeed have counter evidences to suggest otherwise.
Objections to science?
Objections to science?