In article <439219B4.45101D6@xxxxxxxxxx>, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
>> literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
>> seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
>> I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
>> sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
>> that I can see.
>Oh but the difference is enormous. You need to look at the starting
>points for each. The "big bang" is merely a term for one particular
>theory that can be supported to a degree, not a claim of fact. In
>other words, they start with reasoning and some known condition to
>find a probably cause.
> Conclusion - They start with a question to arrive at an answer.
>The "Theist" starting point is the "word of god" in the manner their
>particular scripture as it is written today (it will change tomorrow,
>and it was also different yesterday). From that "truth" they then
>attempt make all things fit that truth - in other words, the massage
>the "evidence" to fit a predetermined outcome.
> Conclusion - They start with an answer to arrive at the question.
You were not reading. Your supposed "response" has *nothing* to do
with the issue I brought. The issue (for your education, if such a
thing is possible) was not:
A) What is the difference between the Big Bang model and the story of
B) What is the difference between a theist objecting to evolution
because it disagrees with scripture and an atheist objecting to the
Big Bang model because it sounds like "creation".
Kindly work on your reading comprehension skills before attempting to
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"