Evidence for God from Science

Yes, Phil, personal attacks. Calling someone smug, provocative, insulting, arrogant and prideful, that's just personal attacks. Don't misunderstand my point. I don't really care if you attack me personally. I don't like it, of course, but it has no weight in the conversation. I raised the point of your ad hominems in light of a substantive critique of Rick's response. You decided to disengage from the actual argument I made it decided to insult. That's your prerogative, and some will agree with your assessment and others won't. It's neither here nor there. The only place it matters is that it means that there's no reason to further engage you on the substance of the discussion--and if you notice, I haven't engaged with you any further on substantive matters since you started your little tirade. My point to Rick was that even you, in the midst of your decision to go personal and reject substantial discussion, could recognize the very basic point I was making about decency. Rick would do well to at least do that. And I do appreciate that small nod you made in the direction of the overarching point I was making before.

But, yes, you sunk to personal attacks and doubled down in that last little temper tantrum there. That's on you, not me. And it's hardly "playing the victim" to point it out.

Jac, you don't think questioning that others don't take Scripture or truth as serious as you isn't being arrogant or insulting? Of course it is! And that and that ONLY is what and precisely why I attacked, because it's uncalled for! Asserting a Christian doesn't place extremely high value upon Scripture or truth is about as insulting as one can be - unless it is obviously true. And you well know that is not the case here. So why did you not use some common sense and not be so insulting? Can you not tolerate someone disagreeing with you to the point that you wish to insult them and show disdain for their values???!!!

Because it isn't insulting. It's obviously true. You have said repeatedly that Scripture ought not be interpreted in such a way that it is contradicted by science. On any reasonable estimation, that isn't taking Scripture seriously. If science contradicts Scripture, science is wrong. Period. To suggest that science has any place in the interpretation of Scripture is just not to take it seriously. That's not insulting, Phil. It's just a fact. I'm not questioning your faith. I'm not questioning your salvation. I'm not questioning your love for God. I'm questioning your hermeneutical commitments and telling you that your commitments don't take Scripture seriously, just like those people who think it is okay to allegorize or spiritual Scripture are not taking it seriously. And you want to turn around and throw a fit and call me smug and arrogant and insulting and boastful and all other such nonsense. I disagree with your assessment of my character, and I'm calling you out on it. Of course, you could offer a substantive argument for why you think we can take Scripture seriously while subjecting it to science, and that's fine. But you don't do that. You just choose to throw a hissy fit and attack my character. And as I said, that's on you, not me. The person who has been insulting in this thread is you, Phil (and Rick, indirectly so to the extent that he's allowing his bias to permit people to say that YECs worship a false god).

In fact, to clarify my point, I say that it is obviously true that Neo takes Scripture more seriously than you, and he doesn't think it is correct in a historical sense as written. And why? Because he lets it be its own witness. But you don't. Your method robs it of its voice, ignores the text itself, and substitutes foreign meaning with plain and obvious eisogesis. I disagree with Neo's conclusions, but at least he is willing to take the text seriously. That's not an insult to you, Phil. It's a factual assessment of your hermeneutical commitments.