SteeleRedux,

<<Yet in your own posts you have used the term on more than one occasion. “Jesus' resurrection is based on historical science that leads to a reliable New Testament document”>>

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. That is inconsistent by me. When I speak about 'historical science' I'm discussing the criteria ancient historians use to determine the truth of anything from history.

However, in this thread most of the others who use 'science' as a topic refer to empirical science that relies on observation and repeatability. It is this latter form of science that I said I would not comment on as it didn't relate to my article.

However, I was imprecise in not differentiating empirical from historical sciences.

Not_Now.Soon, you just wrote:

"To Mr. O: There's nothing in what I've said that is against scientific observation. Instead I'm looking at the observations with the observation that God is real. What you're talking about is rationalizing an excuse to not look and see for yourself. That actually sounds farther from a scientific view then anything."

What a load of gobbledygook!

God is only real to you because you have a religious view of the world where things can only be explained by recourse to the supernatural and you don't have to prove the validity of any of your belief system because all factuality is structured within the context of faith in God's undeniable salvation for believers.

OzSpen: The reason I was going to write about science was in dircet reply to your question "Could your world view be somewhat blinkered?". It was to be a clarification of what my world view is and why I consider it not blinkered but indeed very open (as opposed to fanatical religious thinking which is very closed and limited).
But now I've decided that I wont respond here but rather will create a new thread topic about it this weekend/next week for other people who are open to critical thinking to read since you don't seem to want to be challenged by it here.

Not_Now.Soon: You ask, "What is evolution? Is it an explanation only? Or can it be tested? Can it be pressed to see if it works or not? Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?"

1)"What is evolution?" : Evolution is the best description made by mankind that is compatible with our observations of the world around us about how species change and how new ones develop over time.

2)"Is it an explanation only?" : Yes, it is an description/explanation. But it more that just than because when combined with logic/reasoning it has predictive power. And it is this predictive power that makes science so useful in general. For example, evolution provides the fundamental framework that we use to understand viruses and bacteria and it is its predictive power which helps us develop medical responses to the diseases caused by them. So as you can see beyond being just a description it is actually a very useful theory.

3)"Can it be tested? Can it be pressed to see if it works or not?" : Yes! Just like any thoery of science, the statements claimed by the theory MUST be falsifiable by real world observations. (This is unlike many statements of religion which are very often stated as absolute truths: eg: Christ saying "I'm the way, the truth and the light and no man gets to heaven accept by me." How on Earth could you test that claim??)

--continued below --

--from above --

4)"Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?" : Yes! Evolution has been observed in the lab multiple times! Google it for details. It has also been observed in outside the lab, a famous example was back in 1975 when a team of Japanese scientist discovered a strain of Flavobacterium. This strain of bacteria has evolved the unique ability of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture and nylon 6 has only existed since the 1930's. In otherwords, this strain of bacteria has evolved and adapted in response to environment pressures within our lifetime.
But besides this, what I really fail to understand is why do you think it is important to find examples of it within our life time. Does it mean to you that something is not real if it doesn't happen within or near the present? If this is so, then why would you believe that Jesus existed since he is not among us in the present now??

Dear NNS,

You asked;

“Were you offended by the term "anti-Christian swarm?"”

Clearly I wasn't, but that isn't the point I was making was it. I am challenging the fact that you are quite prepared to use the term, along with the others I spoke of, yet claim I am the one who lacks respect.

“Twaddle” is an excellent word with a rich heritage. It means trivial or foolish speech or writing; nonsense.

Were your efforts to claim you had answered a question, when you clearly had not done so with any attempt at directness, foolish or nonsense? I made the case that they were and in returning with a more fulsome answer you did too.

But how do you know Mr Opinion was 'lazy', 'arrogant' and 'blinkered' because you have made the assumption; “The reason you don't believe in God is because you haven't looked for Him.”

If someone deems something is not there though their appreciation of scientific evidence then they are making a perfectly rational decision not to look further. That should have been the end of it. But you instead decided to berate him for not chasing down your metaphysical pathways. Do you have any sense of how arrogant that is?

To be labeling those who disagree with you an anti-Christian swarm is defensive claptrap.

However there is zero need for you to be more PC just as I have no interest in finding a more PC word than twaddle. You have no reason to expect that kind of courtesy when you are getting as good as you are giving.

Suck it up mate.