Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[discipulus]

I KNEW you were going to go in this direction with that, well not verbatim.

The key difference of course, in 'defending' a scientific position

I did not say people have defended and are defending scientific positions.

What I stated was that people have defended and are defending science. To do this systematically, theses apologists cannot use science but must use other means at attempting to defend it because to say science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because of what we have discovered using science would be to argue in a circle. This is a fallacy known as a tautology.

So you actually have just constructed a strawman of my statement.

and that of a religious one, is that religion isn't based on logic and reasoning (no matter how many apologetics are sitting around the table) and science is based on reason and logic. Apologetics, to be specific, lean more towards defending why religion isn't irrational, and why one can apply reason and logic to it. Most of the books I've read, or lectures I've watched over the years where apologetics were the authors/speakers, they were trying to employ logic and reason to why people should logically come to the conclusion that faith/religion makes sense.

Apologetics is the systematic defense of a particular position irrespective of whether it is secular or religious. That is all it is. Yes there are apologists who deal with defending their particular religious views. So what? There are scientists who are apologists who deal with defending the pursuits of science.

Nothing you said either undercuts or rebuts my argument.

But, a lot of mental gymnastics, and twisting of Scripture usually went into it. Science requires no such spin. Apologetics are the quintessential ''spin doctors'' so to speak.

You have not read the works of too many scientists then.

---

Science has verifiable evidence and that which is proven to be wrong is thrown own.

*Out* is what you mean.

And so what? What does that have to do with my statement that people defend science?

Nothing. It is irrelevant.

Religion has people who desperately attempt to reinterpret what is in their book - unchanging, according to most - says to fit it into a modern context.

To be charitable, I agree.

But so what?

That in no way either undercuts or rebuts my statement which is a statement of fact that people defend the pursuits of science.

Thanks for proving the desperation of your attempts - especially citing CARM as a resource. Once again you've shown yourself to be both arrogant and ignorant.

Perilously close to an ad hominem fallacy my friend.

As of now, your statement stands. Science is therefore fundamentally flawed. I suggest you retract it.

************

Ain't that amazing Deidre!!!

Not all of us Christians are so dumb after all! : )