Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[*Deidre*]

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.

Here we go....

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.

Give an example, if u don't mind.

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

No, you put your spin on things, as usual.

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.

Religious apologetics are defending something that can't be proven. Verified. You know this.

Nothing you said either undercuts or rebuts my argument.

I'm waiting for a valid argument from you, but ok.

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

Presumptious and arrogant FTW!

Ain't that amazing Deidre!!!

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

Praise da lawd, st. discipulus is here!