Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Babcock" data-source="post: 66410" data-attributes="member: 46">Re: You&#039;re welcome.My final post on this....I can fully understand why the National Academy of Sciences makes that statement. There are plenty of creationist authors who are effectively spouting nonsense.&nbsp; However, regardless, there is a core issue - ultimately a creationist perspective relies entirely on the concept of a &quot;supreme being&quot;, and so every claim relies on an actor or cause which cannot be empirically demonstrated.&nbsp; Therefore, one can make many claims within the context of science, but when all of them are attributed to God, then how can that be construed in a manner which is consistent with the way mankind has developed scientific standards - of course it is not going to perfectly mesh with scientific criteria for evidence.&nbsp; You may consider this a cop out, but it is what it is....Check out the quote below:Mike, I don&#039;t wish to pursue PM discussions about this further, I think you suspect more of an agenda from me than is actually intended.&nbsp; I am primarily motivated in just &quot;stirring the pot&quot; a bit.&nbsp; So you heard about the magic elves too?&nbsp; I got mine from Machinadynamica.... :lol:Also going back to the original thread topic, I fully agree that the person originally discussed in the article is not operating in the best interests of the general public, and he would not receive my support in any form.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Babcock, post: 66410, member: 46"] Re: You're welcome. My final post on this.... I can fully understand why the National Academy of Sciences makes that statement. There are plenty of creationist authors who are effectively spouting nonsense. However, regardless, there is a core issue - ultimately a creationist perspective relies entirely on the concept of a "supreme being", and so every claim relies on an actor or cause which cannot be empirically demonstrated. Therefore, one can make many claims within the context of science, but when all of them are attributed to God, then how can that be construed in a manner which is consistent with the way mankind has developed scientific standards - of course it is not going to perfectly mesh with scientific criteria for evidence. You may consider this a cop out, but it is what it is.... Check out the quote below: Mike, I don't wish to pursue PM discussions about this further, I think you suspect more of an agenda from me than is actually intended. I am primarily motivated in just "stirring the pot" a bit. So you heard about the magic elves too? I got mine from Machinadynamica.... :lol: Also going back to the original thread topic, I fully agree that the person originally discussed in the article is not operating in the best interests of the general public, and he would not receive my support in any form. [/QUOTE]

Verification