Well, nobody got it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Cry I think. Maybe I'll let it go for the day and make the (no doubt futile) attempt to explain it later.
Oh, I got it, Faith. But it's even
more funny with a little word replacement:
The Bible is not evidence for reality. If you have a biblical model that says something happened when you have evidence around you that it has not,, the probability is high that the biblical model is erroneous.
The fact that you don't see the simple truth of this statemnt is absolutely hilarious to me.
A mathematical prediction is exactly that - a prediction. It's only as good as the observed evidence used to formulate it. Math, like the Bible, can be a good reason tp
look for something. But observable evidence trumps all. It's simply delusional to ignore observable evidence in favor of something that's supposed to represent reality (whether an old book or a mathematical model) - obviously, if the evidence shows that the mathematical model or the old book do
not represent reality with accuracy, it is not the observable evidence that is wrong.
HINT:
Logic.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2
