pretty intelligent then , them pigeons .
there you go...one silly retort to one silly quote.
bill,- it is certainly true that creationists begin with the position, that the bible is Gods word to us, and to be trusted [whilst still acknowledging some relatively minor copyist errors]. in other words, as relating to this subject, they would not start by looking at the creation account and see if it is true scientifically. the bible is our admitted presupposition. so there is a measure of agreement with you there. but scientific ideas continually change [as you's all rejoice in!] whilst we say that a reliable eyewitness is preferable to mens constantly changing stories.
is that a faith position ?....yes, but not without good scientific backup. even in the simple concept of causality, creation is a clear winner. shimrod claims there are other more plausible explanations. he has not said what these are, retreats to waiting for these explanations to be discovered, and then concedes that we might never know. is that a faith position....you bet it is !
as you know bill, I argue that religious devotion does not only relate to theism, but atheism also. you express yourself quite mildly, but most of your fellow believers express their fervent devotion to their belief by the verbal jihad evidenced here.
even if you bulk at the charge of religious, it is imo, mistaken to think that scientists are totally impartial, and rather, actively pursue what conforms to their preconceived ideas, and worldview. in other words evolutionists have their presuppositions too
of course, my critics will remind me that I am not a scientist.....to which I reply.....shall I quote evolutionist scientists again to reinforce my point ?.
circular reasoning?....you mean like...we know dinos are myo, so soft tissue and DNA must be able to survive that long....
"....proven measurements and data..." no problem with that, its the interpretation of these that are often wrong. the reasoning of, and examples of, often posted before.