Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:And, never eat yellow snow.


I. P. Freeley haha. Almost as funny as Hugh Jass, or Hugh Farey.

I knew not to do that.
Only lactose tolrrant sundadonts eat that stuff.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: The flood is fiction, demonstrably so;

Hello, Audie. I hope your schooling has ended well.

As for the flood itself, and for arguments sake, let's say the flood story is based upon a true event, perhaps not global and more of a regional nature. Do you rule it out totally based upon it happening at a time that young earth creationist suppose. I mean, what if the flood occurred MUCH earlier than YECs would say - are you open to that - at least as folklore based upon a real event? Because if the flood is merely regional AND is considerably older, that's not as easy to disprove. Or do you believe NO flood, even regional and far older, is impossible?

Floods, horrendous ones are a historical fact.
So it is entirely reasonable that the story has some basis in fact.

The bible story seems to have gotten better as it was retold.

Why is it even in the Bible? Seriously. Why do you think? Is there an
accepted reason for it not being seen for what it is, apocryphal?

Audie -- Your questions -- Why is it even in the Bible? Seriously. Why do you think?

Think I've already shared a reason. And 'the Bible story seems to have gotten better as it was retold". I recall only one narrative of Noah's flood. It covers a couple of chapters or so. A person can read about lots of Other floods -- but Noah's flood is different.
People find all sorts of reasons to question it -- and possibly because it Does speak of people and our sinfulness and the consequences Of.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: The flood is fiction, demonstrably so;

Hello, Audie. I hope your schooling has ended well.

As for the flood itself, and for arguments sake, let's say the flood story is based upon a true event, perhaps not global and more of a regional nature. Do you rule it out totally based upon it happening at a time that young earth creationist suppose. I mean, what if the flood occurred MUCH earlier than YECs would say - are you open to that - at least as folklore based upon a real event? Because if the flood is merely regional AND is considerably older, that's not as easy to disprove. Or do you believe NO flood, even regional and far older, is impossible?

Floods, horrendous ones are a historical fact.
So it is entirely reasonable that the story has some basis in fact.

The bible story seems to have gotten better as it was retold.

Why is it even in the Bible? Seriously. Why do you think? Is there an
accepted reason for it not being seen for what it is, apocryphal?

Audie -- Your questions -- Why is it even in the Bible? Seriously. Why do you think?

Think I've already shared a reason. And 'the Bible story seems to have gotten better as it was retold". I recall only one narrative of Noah's flood. It covers a couple of chapters or so. A person can read about lots of Other floods -- but Noah's flood is different.
People find all sorts of reasons to question it -- and possibly because it Does speak of people and our sinfulness and the consequences Of.

I am very far from the only one here, or among Christians, who understand that no
world wide flood ever took place.

If that had been better understood when it was decided what stories are in, and which out, bible wise,
thrre'd not be a discusdion now. It was people who wrote the stories, people who decided later
what they thought was what.

Whatever may be the roots of the story, an oral tradition will not remain as originally told.
Tribal societies are characterized by their oral tradition stories. I am sure that one would be ill advised to go among them and say the story has changed over centuries, or that the
strange tales are of unreal events. Spain in the time of Ferdinand and Isabella would benn a partivularly impropitious place.

If one chooses to think that one particular tribe is the only one with a true story, ( "diffeent") well, that too is also characteristic.

There is one narrative of the flood, now that we have writing, but even vwritten down, it is taken by
sincere Christians as literal world wide, local, or apocryphal. To me? Possible that
it relates to actual events, but with generations of retelling, interpreting as in the above,
it is no longer history, it is literature of the magic reality genre.

As a cautionary tale, it is one of a great many such from all cultures.

I am well acquainted with the suggestion as variously phrased, that atheists
"reject" god because we wish to live a life of sin.

I will assume that is not your intent, and I will likewise avoid some deep water.

No geologist thinks the flood really happened, and it is a bit of a stretch to say
they got their PhDs so they could fool themselves into thinking they are now free to be
libertines. Dont you think so?

Audie wrote:No geologist thinks the flood really happened, and it is a bit of a stretch to say
they got their PhDs so they could fool themselves into thinking they are now free to be
libertines. Dont you think so?

That's not like you to make such unguarded claims. Kurt Wise holds a PhD in Geology from Harvard, as well as both a master's and bachelors in the subject as well (from Harvard and University of Chicago respectively). John Morris holds a PhD in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in Geology from the University of Sidney. The New York Times, hardly a young earth magazine, in mentioning Snelling, noted he was "one of the many creation geologists at the [First Conference on Creation Geology]." The article also states that, "[The young earth creationist movement] can now count hundreds of scientists with master's or PhD degrees in the sciences from respectable universities." (See article here).

Still more examples:John Baumgardner, who is a geophysicist (don't know if that meets your "geologist" threshold or not, but I'd wager he knows a lot more about geology than anyone on this board) and holds a PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles. Steve Austin holds a PhD in Geology from Penn State University. John Whitmore is interesting, as he holds a PhD in Biology with an emphasis on Paleontology from Loma Linda University and is today Associate Professor of Geology at Cedarville university. Last one I'll offer, just because I'm tired of typing, is Tim Clarey, who holds a PhD in Geology from Western Michigan University.

Now, do the VAST MAJORITY of geologists reject an old earth? Of course. But we both know science isn't decided by vote, and it is just factually incorrect to claim that no geologists believe in a young earth.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:No geologist thinks the flood really happened, and it is a bit of a stretch to say
they got their PhDs so they could fool themselves into thinking they are now free to be
libertines. Dont you think so?

That's not like you to make such unguarded claims. Kurt Wise holds a PhD in Geology from Harvard, as well as both a master's and bachelors in the subject as well (from Harvard and University of Chicago respectively). John Morris holds a PhD in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in Geology from the University of Sidney. The New York Times, hardly a young earth magazine, in mentioning Snelling, noted he was "one of the many creation geologists at the [First Conference on Creation Geology]." The article also states that, "[The young earth creationist movement] can now count hundreds of scientists with master's or PhD degrees in the sciences from respectable universities." (See article here).

Still more examples:John Baumgardner, who is a geophysicist (don't know if that meets your "geologist" threshold or not, but I'd wager he knows a lot more about geology than anyone on this board) and holds a PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles. Steve Austin holds a PhD in Geology from Penn State University. John Whitmore is interesting, as he holds a PhD in Biology with an emphasis on Paleontology from Loma Linda University and is today Associate Professor of Geology at Cedarville university. Last one I'll offer, just because I'm tired of typing, is Tim Clarey, who holds a PhD in Geology from Western Michigan University.

Now, do the VAST MAJORITY of geologists reject an old earth? Of course. But we both know science isn't decided by vote, and it is just factually incorrect to claim that no geologists believe in a young earth.

True. I should have taken time to add a qualifier: "No intellectually honest geologist
thinks there was a flood." I thought about saying it, but it seemed needlessly invidious.
But, you call on me, so there it is.

K Wise is a good one to cite. "Even if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I'd still be yec because
that is what the bible seems to say."

Pretty much defines untellectual dishonesty, wouldn't you say?

You wont weary listing the names of the intellectually honest pro flood geologists or
citing their data.

Of course science is not a popularity contest.

Even far less is it a matter for pre-enlightenment thinking, as in reliance on revealed
knowledge passed on by authorities.

It is factually incorrect to say that a world wide flood in historical times actually occurred.

Science doesnt do proof, but it is real good at what used to be called "falsifying"
a belief. Anyone unaware that has happened to the flood story has not caught up with the early 19th
century. Or, they've chosen an awkward compromise between their integrity and their religion.

But I will suppose you know all that and were just twitting me for an overly broad statement.

Yes, I was just twitting you for an overly broad statement. But you'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I don't put too much stock in your claim on intellectual dishonesty. On the contrary, Wise is the poster child for intellectual honesty. And moreover, while perhaps your knowledge of geology is sufficient to critique their arguments for a global flood, mine is not. (Nor, by the way, is it sufficient to affirm them.) And we've had that back and forth, I think. It seems to me that these people know far, far more about the subject than I do, and I bet quite a bit more about it than you do. So why should I believe your claim that they are intellectually dishonest just because they happen to disagree with the view of the majority of scientists? They could, of course, be wrong. But that's not a debate I'm qualified to have, which is why I don't waste my time engaging in it. Note, therefore, that I am not saying they are correct. Again, your last statement above captured precisely my point. I concede that the vast majority of scientists reject a young earth and that even the most highly educated YEC scientists concede the evidence against their theological position is strong. You've conceded that some very highly educated scientists still hold to a global flood, although what you give with one hand you take away with the other by attacking their character. But true scotsman aside, your concession, such as it is, is enough to satisfy me.

So - now we're doing 'intellectual honesty or dishonesty'. Maybe you could define "intellectual honesty / dishonesty".
And I'm one who takes Bible over science. Because "I am the way the Truth and the Life. " says Jesus Christ.

Regarding the Purpose of the flood. Because God tells us that the price we pay for sinning in physical death. Adam and Eve Would have lived forever If they had obeyed God instead of believing satan / they ate the fruit. The Only time God said 'no' to them about only one tree out of the entire garden. Because they Did eat, they Would eventually die physically.

And the same thing was true with the people who existed in Noah's day. God's Word tells us that they had become So Exceedingly wicked and they were warned for 120 days that it took Noah to build the ark. Repent of your sinfulness or die in the flood waters that Will destroy all living mankind. That applied to Everyone / then and since then. They didn't believe God's word as shared to them by Noah and his family and their consequence , as they were warned, was physical death. Had they asked forgiveness For their sins, they Could have entered that ark and lived. God's word tells us that physical death Will take place, BUT no one Has to spend eternity in hell to pay for their sins. Jesus Christ has taken care of that. He died and rose again physically / went to hell In Our place. All a person needs to do is acknowledge they are a sinner and accept God's gift / Jesus Christ's death and resurrection / of salvation From eternity in hell.
Personally, If someone told me that the way to be able to spend eternity in heaven / Avoid hell at all costs / was simply to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior, I'd do so. And to have peace in my heart. I'd do it -- which is why I did many years ago.

crochet1949 wrote:So - now we're doing 'intellectual honesty or dishonesty'. Maybe you could define "intellectual honesty / dishonesty".
And I'm one who takes Bible over science. Because "I am the way the Truth and the Life. " says Jesus Christ.

Regarding the Purpose of the flood. Because God tells us that the price we pay for sinning in physical death. Adam and Eve Would have lived forever If they had obeyed God instead of believing satan / they ate the fruit. The Only time God said 'no' to them about only one tree out of the entire garden. Because they Did eat, they Would eventually die physically.

And the same thing was true with the people who existed in Noah's day. God's Word tells us that they had become So Exceedingly wicked and they were warned for 120 days that it took Noah to build the ark. Repent of your sinfulness or die in the flood waters that Will destroy all living mankind. That applied to Everyone / then and since then. They didn't believe God's word as shared to them by Noah and his family and their consequence , as they were warned, was physical death. Had they asked forgiveness For their sins, they Could have entered that ark and lived. God's word tells us that physical death Will take place, BUT no one Has to spend eternity in hell to pay for their sins. Jesus Christ has taken care of that. He died and rose again physically / went to hell In Our place. All a person needs to do is acknowledge they are a sinner and accept God's gift / Jesus Christ's death and resurrection / of salvation From eternity in hell.
Personally, If someone told me that the way to be able to spend eternity in heaven / Avoid hell at all costs / was simply to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior, I'd do so. And to have peace in my heart. I'd do it -- which is why I did many years ago.

As I said, I am familiar with the cautionsry tale genre, but tnx for expounding a bit
on how you see that one.

As for intellectual honesty, I've no personal definition to add to what is out there.

But lets look at Dr. Wise's statement: "...what the Bible seems to say."

Seems. To him. How he feels. Feels.

"All the evidence in the universe."

Here is an example of how this could play out; imagine a person on trial for
his life in a 3rd world court. The evidence-travel documents, photographs,
testimony, etc all showed his innocence but the judge told the jury to
disregard it, in fact any and all evidence in the universe, for lo, he feels the person should be convicted.

You've inserted, and then emphasized, the word "feels" into the conversation, Audie. That's no Wise's word. He reads the biblical account and thinks, after looking at the biblical evidence, that the story is depicting a worldwide flood. In light of other evidence, he thinks that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God; therefore, it's testimony is evidence that needs to be considered when drawing conclusions regarding any given matter.

He thinks that the scientific evidence strongly corrolates with the standard scientific perspective. He thinks that not all evidence accords with that perspective, some of it scientific, some of it from other disciplines (i.e., theology). In this case, then, he has conflicting evidence from which to draw conclusions. How he draws those conclusions depends on how he weighs he evidence. You, of course, weigh the evidence differently than he does and so come to a different conclusion. And perhaps your conclusion is correct. But you do not have the right, as far as I can tell, of accusing someone of being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting their position simply because they weight evidence differently than you do. That would be question begging and a logical fallacy.

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, I was just twitting you for an overly broad statement. But you'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I don't put too much stock in your claim on intellectual dishonesty. On the contrary, Wise is the poster child for intellectual honesty. And moreover, while perhaps your knowledge of geology is sufficient to critique their arguments for a global flood, mine is not. (Nor, by the way, is it sufficient to affirm them.) And we've had that back and forth, I think. It seems to me that these people know far, far more about the subject than I do, and I bet quite a bit more about it than you do. So why should I believe your claim that they are intellectually dishonest just because they happen to disagree with the view of the majority of scientists? They could, of course, be wrong. But that's not a debate I'm qualified to have, which is why I don't waste my time engaging in it. Note, therefore, that I am not saying they are correct. Again, your last statement above captured precisely my point. I concede that the vast majority of scientists reject a young earth and that even the most highly educated YEC scientists concede the evidence against their theological position is strong. You've conceded that some very highly educated scientists still hold to a global flood, although what you give with one hand you take away with the other by attacking their character. But true scotsman aside, your concession, such as it is, is enough to satisfy me.

I can see Dr. Wise as honest in the sense that a theif who confesses, but would do it again
is honest. He tacitly concedes the strong incentive he has for completely disregarding
any nod, even, to objectivity. He is very upfront saying no data would ever make any difference. The same incentive is demonstrably behind the feelingsof all the others in this same cognitive dissonance bind.

I see no intellectual honesty in ignoring all facts in favour of feelings.
Do you? Prease exprain howit works, if so.

Hired tobacco company researchers have been in a similar position.
Strong incentives; few I am sure would argue for the objectivity or
validity ofvwork showing no health risk in smoking. Nor would
anyone get much traction arguing for their objectivity with the complaint
that its just an attack on their character.

Naturally, I am going to have some bias, great skepticism at the
least, concerning any work that purports to show there was a flood
and coincidentally disproves all the research such as ice core dating,
etc and blah that one can present as flood disproof.

That is quite an order; he who can do that will have far more than a mere Nobel
coming.

Meanwhile, some skepticism of agenda driven research by people who put an ideological
conclusion ahead of all data, and filter all data thru that irrevocable conclusion
is in order. Dont you think so?

Im a little surprised you offer to defend such antics.

I've already addressed your "feelings" riff, Audie. If that's the basis of your argument, you are begging the question, as I said before, which is irrational. I'm surprised to see you being so loose with your words.

Jac3510 wrote:You've inserted, and then emphasized, the word "feels" into the conversation, Audie. That's no Wise's word. He reads the biblical account and thinks, after looking at the biblical evidence, that the story is depicting a worldwide flood. In light of other evidence, he thinks that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God; therefore, it's testimony is evidence that needs to be considered when drawing conclusions regarding any given matter.

He thinks that the scientific evidence strongly corrolates with the standard scientific perspective. He thinks that not all evidence accords with that perspective, some of it scientific, some of it from other disciplines (i.e., theology). In this case, then, he has conflicting evidence from which to draw conclusions. How he draws those conclusions depends on how he weighs he evidence. You, of course, weigh the evidence differently than he does and so come to a different conclusion. And perhaps your conclusion is correct. But you do not have the right, as far as I can tell, of accusing someone of being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting their position simply because they weight evidence differently than you do. That would be question begging and a logical fallacy.

Once a person has decided to disregard any and all evidence in favour of how things
seem to be, what exactly does one have left?

You can't get feelings from "seem." The word "seem" is merely a nod to the fact that the evidence requires intepretation, and all the more in this case. Wise is a very, very highly educated man, trained in the scientific method in particular. He understands that if he were to just say, "The Bible says there was a global flood," then he would have people complaining that he's just substituting his interpretation of the text with what the text actually says. And so he says what is factually correct: it his assessment, the text teaches a global flood--that is, it "seems" to teach a global flood.

For the record, I work in a clinical setting. Doctors, nurses, chaplains, and other clinicians virtually never say something IS this or that. It's even in our clinical documentation. "Seems" or "apparently," etc., when drawing conclusions. And as someone interested in science, I expect you to appreciate that language. I expect that you would say that, based on the scientific evidence we have so far, that it seems the universe has been around a little less than 14 billion years; that it seems that the earth is about 4 billion years old; that it seems that life evolved from single celled organisms, and so on. And you would objet if I said that you are merely operating on "feelings."

In other words, as you have said so many times, science doesn't do proof. It does evidence. And hermeneutics is a science that likewise doesn't do proof. It does evidence. And therefore those of us formally trained in this stuff, when speaking strictly, use evidential language, as Wise is in this case. So as I said, that's the hallmark of intellectual honesty, and while you and I view the world rather differently to say the least, what I have always appreciated about you, and what I expect to continue to appreciate about you, is your honesty with facts and evidence and your refusal to overstate and allow others to overstate cases. Thus, while you strongly disagree with Wise (and the other geologists I mentioned) on how he weights evidence, I have no doubt that you'll retract your claim that he is intellectuall dishonest. You will, perhaps, say that he has chosen to weight other disciplines (e.g., hermeneutic and theology) more heavily than science, and that you don't think such an attitude is appropriate for a scientist. You may, then, say that when he is drawing conclusions based on such weighting that he is not speaking as a scientist, for part of being a scientist is weighting evidence in a particular way. And that's okay, too. I wouldn't waste my time quibbling with such claims as I am not sufficiently trained in the sciences to pretend to know, certainly the level that Wise knows, what is and is not scientific in such regards. But to say he is being intellectually dishonest because he recognizes that he is interpreting evidence strikes me as a bit . . . well . . . intellecutally dishonest. Which you, Audie, are most certainly not.

-----------------

edit:

And one more note, as you seem to be making a run on overstatements recently . . . I don't think it's prudent for you to claim that Wise has rejected "any and all evidence." The biblical text is, in fact, evidence for his worldview. Now you may consider it incredibly weak evidence, but to simply say it is not evidence at all is just uncharitable at best and, again, irrational question begging at worst. The fact is, Wise, for reasons you do not accept, chooses to regard certain bits of information as evidence (and in his understanding if things, very strong evidence) that you do not, and worse for you, he weights that information very highly. But none of that, again, makes him dishonest. Quite the contrary, he is exceptionally open, clear, and honest about how he weighs the evidence, and I think that he, then, is the poster child for intellectual honesty.

A short answer to your question, then, would be, "He has the biblical evidence." For him, that's meaningful. For you, it isn't. At least he is honest about it. I hope you would be, too.

Jac3510 wrote:You can't get feelings from "seem." The word "seem" is merely a nod to the fact that the evidence requires intepretation, and all the more in this case. Wise is a very, very highly educated man, trained in the scientific method in particular. He understands that if he were to just say, "The Bible says there was a global flood," then he would have people complaining that he's just substituting his interpretation of the text with what the text actually says. And so he says what is factually correct: it his assessment, the text teaches a global flood--that is, it "seems" to teach a global flood.

For the record, I work in a clinical setting. Doctors, nurses, chaplains, and other clinicians virtually never say something IS this or that. It's even in our clinical documentation. "Seems" or "apparently," etc., when drawing conclusions. And as someone interested in science, I expect you to appreciate that language. I expect that you would say that, based on the scientific evidence we have so far, that it seems the universe has been around a little less than 14 billion years; that it seems that the earth is about 4 billion years old; that it seems that life evolved from single celled organisms, and so on. And you would objet if I said that you are merely operating on "feelings."

In other words, as you have said so many times, science doesn't do proof. It does evidence. And hermeneutics is a science that likewise doesn't do proof. It does evidence. And therefore those of us formally trained in this stuff, when speaking strictly, use evidential language, as Wise is in this case. So as I said, that's the hallmark of intellectual honesty, and while you and I view the world rather differently to say the least, what I have always appreciated about you, and what I expect to continue to appreciate about you, is your honesty with facts and evidence and your refusal to overstate and allow others to overstate cases. Thus, while you strongly disagree with Wise (and the other geologists I mentioned) on how he weights evidence, I have no doubt that you'll retract your claim that he is intellectuall dishonest. You will, perhaps, say that he has chosen to weight other disciplines (e.g., hermeneutic and theology) more heavily than science, and that you don't think such an attitude is appropriate for a scientist. You may, then, say that when he is drawing conclusions based on such weighting that he is not speaking as a scientist, for part of being a scientist is weighting evidence in a particular way. And that's okay, too. I wouldn't waste my time quibbling with such claims as I am not sufficiently trained in the sciences to pretend to know, certainly the level that Wise knows, what is and is not scientific in such regards. But to say he is being intellectually dishonest because he recognizes that he is interpreting evidence strikes me as a bit . . . well . . . intellecutally dishonest. Which you, Audie, are most certainly not.

-----------------

edit:

And one more note, as you seem to be making a run on overstatements recently . . . I don't think it's prudent for you to claim that Wise has rejected "any and all evidence." The biblical text is, in fact, evidence for his worldview. Now you may consider it incredibly weak evidence, but to simply say it is not evidence at all is just uncharitable at best and, again, irrational question begging at worst. The fact is, Wise, for reasons you do not accept, chooses to regard certain bits of information as evidence (and in his understanding if things, very strong evidence) that you do not, and worse for you, he weights that information very highly. But none of that, again, makes him dishonest. Quite the contrary, he is exceptionally open, clear, and honest about how he weighs the evidence, and I think that he, then, is the poster child for intellectual honesty.

A short answer to your question, then, would be, "He has the biblical evidence." For him, that's meaningful. For you, it isn't. At least he is honest about it. I hope you would be, too.

He did say "all the evidence in the universe." All.

It is clear too, that he put the conclusion first.

Would the honesty of this approach come into better focus if you werd on trial in said
third world court, or presented as arguments against the reality of god?



Einstein described such as the flood story as "childish superstitions".

More recently, ice core dating shows that no such event occurred.

I find it interesting in a clinical sort of way, to observe how people
such as you find ways to apply logic, philosophy and logic to (seemigly, what they feel to be)
arrive inescapably at the most absurd conclusions.

Yes, he said "all the evidence." Are you going to say that, for Wise, "all the evidence" means all evidence including Scripture? Obviously not, because if the Scriptural evidence did not indicate a global flood, then he would affirm that one really happened, now would he? Isn't it obvious, then, that he's referring to scientific evidence?

Again, Audie, the real point here is very basic: Wise regards the biblical data as evidence that ought to be factored in when making statements about the nature of reality. At worst, you don't think it is evidence at all; at best, you think it should be weighted very lightly. You and Wise disagree on that. All I'm wanting from you is to stop misrepresenting his position. I'm not asking you to AGREE. I'm asking you not to be dishonest. Because right now the only person putting the conclusion first is you. You are suggesting, whether you intend it or not, that the biblical evidence ought not be considered evidence because it does not comport with science. And that's a perfectly fine position to hold, but to accuse someone else of being dishonest because they disagree with that assessment is where the question gets begged; for the debate between you and Wise would be whether or not the biblical evidence ought to be regarded and if so how seriously. For you to conclude he is dishonest because he has not already accepted your conclusion on the matter is dishonest on your part, and then for you to interpret his words in the most uncharitable manner to fit with your preconceived notion of him beind intellectually dishonest is both dishonest in itself and beneath you.

And as to your hypothetical, if this were a trial in a third world country, then no, his honesty would not come into question. I would approach it exactly as I am asking you to approach it. I would get him to confirm that he regards the Bible as evidence. I would get him to confirm that he regards the scientific data as evidence. I would then get him to say publically how he weights the evidence. I would then ask how many other experts weighted the evidence as he does and I would present my case to the jury that, in light of other expert testimony, that they are under no obligation to weight the evidence as Wise does, and that they can disagree with him even though they do not have his professional expertise. And if you want to try to use this as evidence against God, then please feel free to do so. I don't see how such a connection could be made, but if you want to put it in a syllogism, then I'd love to evaluate it.

So, I'm sorry if you find it clinically interesting that we should insist on rigorous logic and denying that anyone one either side should overstate their case. Your conclusion can be right, Audie, while your reasoning can be all wrong. And putting words in people's mouths ("feeling") and misrepresenting their position ("all the evidence") to sustain a preconceived conclusion (question begging) is wrong reasoning. You rightly expect better of us, and I expect better from you.