Keep in Mind

A couple of points on this paragraph.
1) What, to some, appears as a strength of a faith-based approach is a weakness in the mind of others. That is the total inability of it to change over time. However, that is a rather harsh view of it. In fact, the faith based approach has, in general, changed over time. In the mind of the majority, God no longer controls the sun in it's daily arc and doesn't meddle on a minute by minute basis with events here. To me that is a significant change. The fact that a few haven't kept up doesn't make it less true.2)The "tentativeness" of science can be carried too far, IMHO. As a theory is worked out over decades it does become less tentative. We can expect changes but not a complete erasure of many existing theories, existing results will hold is my expectation.Examples of this is Newton's theory of gravitation and dynamics. It was demonstrated to be "wrong" and the general and special theory of relativity replace them. However, they aren't totaly gone. They are very useful for a wide range of "normal" conditions.I expect that for some theories this will be the type of change we might expect. A "modification" rather than a replacement of the old with new. I think the same type of modification (refinement?) has already been undergone by the ToE of Darwin.So the comment about things being "disproven" should take this into consideration. Newton was completely and utterly "disproven" but that doesn't mean apples fall up or that most of what his theory predicts is not perfectly useful and right enough for many, many cases. I think most of us can understand the feelings about this. And I hope most of the 'unbelievers' can remember not to worry about those who take God on faith alone. The argument is supposed to be over evidence not what one chooses to believe or not believe on faith alone.However, there is a difference in one who choose not to take something on faith and one who chooses to ignore real data and who employs obviously flawed logic. It may be that the annoyance is with the method used to arrive at the conclusion more than the conclusion itself.(All that said, there are such things as militant athiests who like to attack for very personal reasons. Just let it go when you encounter that.)

Skeptics do not, in a general way, rule out the miraculous as being impossible or unthinkable (certainly not unthinkable since it is thought about). What a skeptic does is expect there to be good reasons for believing something.Since we all know that an individual can be fooled and fool themselves we look for a way of countering this problem. A part of this solution is to expect good data to be obtainable by others under the same circumstances as the originator obtained it. Thus, almost by definition, the miraculous is hard to include.It doesn't seem to want to happen on que at all so it can't be retested. It also seems to manage to have results that can, at least a lot of the time, be reproduced by less extraordinary means. It also seems to fade into the distance the more you know about the circumstances under which it was supposed to have occured. This makes skeptics, well, skeptical .As for you evidence from the Bible it does seem to have a bit of circularity to it doesn't it?

Thank you for letting us know you will need more time before you can get back. That is polite.

Oh, you know about string theory? You can then show us how it results in us being the "lords of creation". I will be interested in the details. However, you will have to spell it out carefully since I'm not at all an expert. Thanks for keeping it simple.

---

Common sense isn't