A a general rule, lines of argument that are so general they could be raised in any discussion are ruled off-topic except for threads where they are the designated topic of discussion. Responding to scientific arguments by questioning the definition of science is one of these. In any scientific topic someone could say, "But you're conclusion is wrong because you're using an incorrect definition of science." This approach has been tried time and again, and it will be consistently ruled off topic. Anyone who would like to discuss the foundational ideas of science is welcome to propose a new thread, as has happened here many times. I'll approve it as radidly as I can.
Faith is a more nebulous concept, but this is a science forum. We're not discussing faith in a science forum. Faith-based approaches to science can be argued in the religious forums.
When discussion devolves to arguing about the definitions of words like fact, interpretation, logic and fallacy then it is well past time for moderator intervention, which is what I'm doing. Anyone who would like to discuss the topic of the opening post, which is how faith-based beliefs can be reconciled with evidence that contradicts them, is free to proceed. Significant and/or determined digressions will receive warnings and eventual suspension.
Please understand that no relevant topic is off-limits here. But one of the goals of EvC Forum that differentiates it from other boards is to keep discussion focused and on-topic. We don't try to keep any subjects from being discussed. When an interesting digression is ruled off-topic by moderators, simply propose it as a new topic.
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |