Your reply to me, Faith, didn't really address anything.
However, this board is hosted by the science side and it is their job to make room for their opponents if they sincerely want to debate. But there cannot be genuine debate when the ground rules preclude the very premise of the opposition.
And the "science side"
does make room for you. We have the Faith and Belif forums, and on the Science forums, anyone who can provide
actual evidence that falsifies accepted theory will be recognized. Scientits, by definition, are willing to admit that they are wrong about conclusions. It's part of the scientific method. We are all willing to admit being wrong if evidence is shown that actually refutes us.
The problem is that your evidence is a book - a book you believe in, yes, but to the rest of us it's a really old book with no outside supporting evidence.
As much as we need to see your side, Faith, you need to see ours, too. No debate can follow if either side is unwilling to admit to being wrong in the face of evidence.
Arguing with you is like bashing your head against a brick wall when it finally comes down to "the Bible trumps all." You treat it like a magic "I win" button, and that's not honest debate.
I won't post in this thread again, and I apologize to IRH for taking up valuable posts with off-topic replies like this, but Faith is pushing my buttons with her line of thinking. "Admit that the Bible is inerrant or I won't debate with you!"
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2
