[FreeReign]

To repeat myself: "science" is (or is supposed to be) empiricism. "Reason" is any mode of thought used to solve a problem that is logically consistent. Both uniformitarian evolutionism and literalist creationism are reasonable given the premises of each. The confusion of one with "faith" and one with "reason" is a childish error.

So then AP should be taken to task for confusing "faith" and "reason".

What about you with your remark questioning ones faith?

"Any organization that accepts the supernatural events related in the "new testament" has no business sitting in judgment on Genesis".

[Zionist Conspirator]

So then AP should be taken to task for confusing "faith" and "reason".

It isn't just AP. Most people nowadays seem to confuse "science" with "reason."

What about you with your remark questioning ones faith?

"Any organization that accepts the supernatural events related in the "new testament" has no business sitting in judgment on Genesis".

I stand by that statement. Anyone who subjects the supernatural phenomena of Genesis to scientific critique but who refuses to do likewise with resurrection from the dead, transubstantiation, or multiplication of loaves and fishes is simply a hypocrite and perhaps a bigot as well.

[metmom]

What about you with your remark questioning ones faith?

It's a (dare I say it?) reasonable conclusion to come to.

If one accepts the miracles in the NT that one's faith is based on as true, then why is it not reasonable to accept miracles surrounding the creation event?

[Natural Law]

"What about you with your remark questioning ones faith?"

You won't get an answer, at best you will get a lecture that attempts to reinforce his dubious intellectual superiority. ZC and his ilk fancy themselves the theological elite and any belief system that is not lock step with their narrow view is fair game for ridicule. However, make a caustic observation of their beliefs and they will spend the next two days leaning on the abuse button.