| padib said: By the way, Sri Lumpa, the rest of your post is still on my mind. |
No worries.
Don't feel pressured to answer it either. I would not consider a lack of answer as a concession as I doubt either of us will convince the other and eventually reality (or boredom) will reassert itself and one of us will withdraw from the debate. I wouldn't want you to assume a lack of response on my part to be an admission so I would not assume a lack of response on your part to be an admission either (even us non-christians can see the value in the golden rule).
Actually my aim is not so much to convince you about the big bang and evolution as to:
1. Try to help you understand them better. Unfortunately I cannot make you understand them better than my own understanding of them, which is lacking as I generally do not have enough time to study them.
2. Improve MY understanding of them as while I often have a pretty good idea of what my argument will be I still have to google references, which causes me to read them and thus improve my understanding of them. I often read vulgarisation articles over the years and retain some of the main points but don't have time to look it up further. I have the time right now so our debate helps me learn more stuff too.
3. Try to make you understand why I and most scientist do not see the creationist approach as scientific.
Outside this debate, this (to me) is the most important point because science, for all its faults, is very useful not only to help us understand the world but also in giving us the tools to manipulate it. If you neuter it by injecting religion then while we would still have past advances it would slow down future progress by putting blinders on science. Scientists are only human and have their own blinders (as we all do) and the last thing they need is even more blinders.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
