About to drop a verbal bomb on Facebook

[Agramon]

One of the flaws with this approach is that the target audience more than likely has zero familiarity with the history of Christian thought nor respect for any of the councils by which major disagreements were settled. It's too bad, because I'd love to see this argued out with representatives of the whole of Christendom.

[Atheon]

He's trying desperately to point out the inconsistencies of science, because those dastardly scientists change their mind every time new data comes up.

And that's one of the strengths of science: when new data comes to light, scientists refine their models, and the resulting models come ever closer to the mark. (I like using the word "refine" because it's more accurate than "change"; it's also more persuasive to fence-sitters.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

yeah.......... can I get a ruling on that one, please? Where exactly does it say in the bible that god gets a pass on lying?

Yes indeed.  It cracks me up that Christians carve out special pleadings for their god's sins, and at the same time denounce moral relativism.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I deny the conclusions because i see the errors in the methodology. so would you like to know be intellectually honest and discuss those errors? or do you still desire not to have your views challenged in a logical and thoughtful discussion? or do you not allow that in on your wall?

Ok, I'll break it down into simpler steps.

1. An omni-benevolent and orderly God creates an orderly and observable universe.
2. An orderly and observable universe is understandable.
3. An understandable universe is one where people can learn more about the universe.
4. A universe where people can learn more about the universe is one where the conclusions of research are trustworthy.

One leads to two, two leads to three, three leads to four. If four is false, then so is three. If three is false than so is two. If two is false than so is one.

You say you agree with one and disagree with four.

It's not that I won't "allow my views to be challenged." There simply is no debate within scientific circle about the topics you say are so hotly contested. There is simply no point in debating the tangent you so desperately want to discuss instead. There is no point. The science on this is settled and not contested. But if you really feel you've found serious and gross errors in methodology, what you should do is write an article to submit to peer review. You could get a Nobel Prize for Science.

I'm not allowing debate on irrelevant tangents on settled issues. Sorry, I know you'd rather debate irrelevant tangents on settled issues.