I don't know the answer to that question, do you?
angryoldfatman: "I find your extreme interest in the subject interesting in and of itself."
But my interest in this subject is no more "extreme" than in any other subject I've posted on.
angryoldfatman: "Have they been defaming science?
Is that possible?
Science is strong enough to defend itself, isn’t it?"
Of course they do, and you know that well if you've read anti-evolution threads & posts.
Some not only defame & misrepresent science, they attempt to redefine science by denying some of its basic assumptions.
angryoldfatman: "We’re talking about empirical evidence and methodical naturalism - how can that be defamed or even denied?"
A good many have no idea what those words mean, even after they've been explained.
angryoldfatman: "Is politeness now considered political correctness?"
I don't accept that words like "rubbish" or "nonsense" are too "rude" for Free Republic's non-religious news/activism threads.
Of course, if you wish to argue that once a discussion moves from "the science of evolution" to "evolution & religion", then standards for what is acceptably polite necessarily must rise, I can accept that.
However, you will not find in any post of mine where my terms "rubbish" or "nonsense" ever applied to anyone's religious beliefs.
I do use such terms to posters who misrepresent, mock or defame science, because such words are appropriate responses.
angryoldfatman: "If you feel so strongly about science and Christianity, why are you only interested in defending them here, IN PARTICULAR Christianity?"
FRiend, I have neither knowledge of nor interest in other sites, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
I do respond on Free Republic if I see posts that look like rubbish & nonsense.
My point of view on this thread is to provide arguments which support both the science of evolution and traditional biblical exegeses.
I think that can be done for people who wish to, such that it's not necessary to chose between rejecting either science or the Bible.
Did you "get" that key point?
I'm not here posting threads of my own, merely responding to posts & threads from others.
So again, the real question is, why do they keep posting such threads?
angryoldfatman: "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?"
I think God is always on the side of truth.
So defending science here is not what atheists want, it's what God expects.
Indeed, and I've mentioned this frequently before: most Christians belong to denominations which teach that evolution may have been a tool God used to create the world as we see it.
So your assumption on what is atheists' work is simply false, FRiend.
angryoldfatman: "Where does science fit in with Christ’s prophecy here?"
It doesn't: in no way, shape or form, does science belong in such spiritual matters.
But as for some future natural mass-extinctions, science tells us the Earth records a pattern of extinctions at fairly regular intervals, and we are now due, or past due.
It's a reason why governments spend money searching in outer space for asteroids such as one said to have destroyed dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.
If that size asteroid could be diverted harmlessly away, it's a good thing, imho.
But looking longer term, in a few billion years, science says the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.
So our descendants, if there are any, will need to find a new home, says science.
So amazingly, in some sense natural-science and the spiritual Bible agree, not only about creation & catastrophes of the past, but also a possible future.
I don’t know the answer to that question [what harm it would do for others to be wrong], do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are you so adamant about correcting the “defamation” of science (from what I’ve seen, only evolution - if you have examples of other science threads where you’ve defended science please feel free to show me) when you don’t know if it does any harm?
Why not let the delusional be delusional? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But my interest in this subject is no more “extreme” than in any other subject I’ve posted on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This particular thread had pretty much ground to a halt. Then you decided to resurrect it, and make a post many hundreds of words long to do so.
Is there another thread about another subject on FR where you’ve done this? I’d like to see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course they do [defame science], and you know that well if you’ve read anti-evolution threads & posts.
Some not only defame & misrepresent science, they attempt to redefine science by denying some of its basic assumptions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what? As I’ve asked several times already, whom does it harm?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A good many have no idea what those words [empirical evidence and methodical naturalism] mean, even after they’ve been explained.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what? Just as many probably don’t know what “Epicureanism” means, even though it’s mentioned in the Bible. They most assuredly don’t know what “Draper-White conflict thesis” is, even though it affects many of the attitudes involved in these types of discussions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t accept that words like “rubbish” or “nonsense” are too “rude” for Free Republic’s non-religious news/activism threads.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn’t ask if it was too rude for FR. I asked if your abrasive tone was effective in achieving your goal of defending Christianity and modern science.
Is it? How is it more effective than simply stating your disagreement with proper sourcing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FRiend, I have neither knowledge of nor interest in other sites, so you’re barking up the wrong tree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s too bad.
You see, there are many other sites out there who agree with everything you post about evolution. They are even more knowledgeable about the nuances of evolutionary biology than you.
The problem is, most of them are filled with atheists who not only defame Christianity, but are attempting to eradicate it altogether using science as a weapon against it.
Since we’re talking about the loss of eternal life versus being in error about some scientific thing in the temporary existence on Earth, and given your goal, I would think you would care more about saving the souls of those others than with calling out Freepers (most of which are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ) on their errors about evolution.
After all, which one does more harm, being wrong about evolution or being wrong about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
And why don’t you care enough about the eternal fate of people who agree with you about science to tell them of the Gospel?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It [Christ’s prophecy of an unprecedented tribulation] doesn’t: in no way, shape or form, does science belong in such spiritual matters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Human extinction is a purely spiritual matter? If that is the case, we don’t need to study it scientifically, do we? We leave spiritual matters at home when we put on our labcoats and head out to the lab, correct?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But looking longer term, in a few billion years, science says the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.
So our descendants, if there are any, will need to find a new home, says science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is that before or after Christ’s Second Coming?