[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B] I think I get your point. You're saying that when considered in a broader context Creationism is correct. I concede you could well be right. Debaters on the evolution side are not debating within this broader context, but instead limit themselves to the scientific arena, a context within which Creationism is clearly wrong
You mention the supernatural, but that is the very opposite of science. Science limits itself to the natural, that which is apparent to the five senses. By definition any event which we can overtly detect is not supernatural. If God were to come tomorrow and move mountains it would be a stupefying and scientifically inexplicable event, but it wouldn't be supernatural because it would be observable by all the senses.
**********************************************************
Some observations on your post. First, debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument. Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone. Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists. And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural. A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.
However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable. To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense. Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics). The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.
[Edited to remove too long line. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]