Just my opinion, but virtually everyone seems confused about the boundary-line and interface between natural-science and the Bible.
Apparently, many think they must either reject one or the other, maybe both, since supposedly they can't all be true.
So my basic argument here is that if you understand the differences between natural and spiritual realms, you can accept both for what they are.
And despite your claims, the issue here is not your FRiend, BroJoeK, because I'm merely responding to frequent posts on this subject by people who obviously consider it hugely important.
Why do they think it's important enough to stubbornly make their cases over & over?
Presumably, because they think the only way to defend the Bible is to defame science, and that's what I respond to.
angryoldfatman: "...is using an abrasive tone (i.e., calling any doubt of it “rubbish and nonsense, blathering, denier”) an effective way of doing so?"
But there's a lot of rubbish & nonsense posted here.
Are we to be so politically correct we can't call it what it is?
angryoldfatman: "As an aside, do you defend Christianity at atheistic evolution blogs and message boards like you defend your views of science here?
If not, why not?
Is that not part of your stated goal?"
I've never seen such a thread or poster on Free Republic.
I have no interest in other sites.
angryoldfatman: "The supposedly impossible position in this case was reconciliation of the Flood story with the current scientific theories of geology."
Curious it could be an issue, since the geological record is chock full of data relating to past mass extinctions -- some over 90% of fossilized species -- floods and other catastrophic events.
So the importance of Noah's life is not the scientific details, but the spiritual message from God, in this case reminding us by a rainbow, that we will not see such a flood again.
But Noah's flood also reminds us that we may have an important role in preventing future mass extinctions.
Just my opinion, but virtually everyone seems confused about the boundary-line and interface between natural-science and the Bible.
Apparently, many think they must either reject one or the other, maybe both, since supposedly they can’t all be true.
So my basic argument here is that if you understand the differences between natural and spiritual realms, you can accept both for what they are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are you avoiding the question, BroJoeK? The question is what harm would it do for others to be wrong about this subject?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And despite your claims, the issue here is not your FRiend, BroJoeK, because I’m merely responding to frequent posts on this subject by people who obviously consider it hugely important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What did I claim? I merely have been asking questions. The closest thing to a declarative statement I made about you was that I find your extreme interest in the subject interesting in and of itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why do they think it’s important enough to stubbornly make their cases over & over?
Presumably, because they think the only way to defend the Bible is to defame science, and that’s what I respond to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have they been defaming science? Is that possible? Science is strong enough to defend itself, isn’t it? We’re talking about empirical evidence and methodical naturalism - how can that be defamed or even denied?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But there’s a lot of rubbish & nonsense posted here.
Are we to be so politically correct we can’t call it what it is?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve found that my opinions are better received when I am polite. Is politeness now considered political correctness?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
angryoldfatman: “As an aside, do you defend Christianity at atheistic evolution blogs and message boards like you defend your views of science here?
If not, why not?
Is that not part of your stated goal?”
I’ve never seen such a thread or poster on Free Republic.
I have no interest in other sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your stated goal was:
“My goal is simply to defend the Christianity and modern science I began learning as a child.
I don’t consider them at war against each other, and don’t like seeing either distorted.”
If you feel so strongly about science and Christianity, why are you only interested in defending them here, IN PARTICULAR Christianity? Christ gave us a mission to share the Gospel with the entire world, not with just FreeRepublic (whose members are overwhelmingly Christian already).
If Christianity was so important to you, wouldn’t you do what Christ wants you to do instead of what atheists want you to do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Noah’s flood also reminds us that we may have an important role in preventing future mass extinctions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ said we must worry about our own existence, since without divine intervention we will be extinct due to “tribulation”.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A21-23&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A19-21&version=KJV
Where does science fit in with Christ’s prophecy here?