The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview

By the results, of course.Hey, I never said it made sense.

What other methods are there that are distinguishable from making shit up?Show me the success of any methodology other than verifiable investigation of the natural world. I mean, I'm sitting in an apartment filled with the technological fruit of science, which dominates our world now, and science is really only about 3-400 years old. On the other hand, there was a time when religious methodology held sway in the West - that time period is called "The Dark Ages," and lasted a thousand years. Why do you think that might be? Why do you think that they did not have, for instance, telephones and airplanes in the Dark Ages, if the methodology they used was just as good as science?A thousand years of darkness and ignorance is enough, don't you think? I guess not.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-21-2004 07:08 PM

Absolutely none whatsoever - the same qualifications as you, or any other human being. The "divine", whatever that is, is quite outside the realm of human knowledge. Even if you think the Bible is right about divinity, how would you know? You'd have to be able to know about divinity yourself to assess that, and you can't.Science is the only path to knowledge that is different than making stuff up. All the rest are no better than invention. With the help of Christians, and other believers, yes. Along with your beliefs on God.On the other hand, one man named Norman Borlaug used science to save a billion human lives. I'm totally not joking. One billion lives saved by Norman Borlaug. Look him up. What wonders? Some upended stones? A few pyramids? We live in an age where the most commonplace action - say, a woman buying a prepaid cell phone and a microwave burrito in a convinience store with a credit card - is more wonderous by far than anything seen in centuries past. What in the past could possibly compare to Einstein's relativity, or Godel's incompleteness theorem? Or Norman Borlaug's unparalleled beneficence?

But what if the Bible intrudes in a scientific matter? Are we to suspend studies in entomology simply because the Bible says locusts have only four legs?If the Bible sees fit to inject itself into matters upon which it has no purview, then its supporters should not be surprised to find it contradicted by science.

And your disingenuity in avoiding any meaningful response confirms that you have no case, nor any interest in fruitful debate.

The problem is that WT can't tell the difference between science making religious claims and religion making scientific claims.