All Bible passages (I assume you are talking about the Bible and not the Quran or the Hindu Vedas.) make sense in context. Genesis, Chapter One makes sense -- given that it is poetry, not science. Genesis, Chapter Two makes sense, given that it is a parable, a moral lesson, not history.
I have faith that is correct.
I have faith in things that require faith. Science does not require faith. I am quite comfortable using scientific models even when I do not know whether or not some of the unproven inferences correspond to reality, if the model gives reliable results in the area I'm concerned with. All models have anomalies. All models have distortions. The trick is to choose the model that best fits the need of the moment.
I see now how that works.
Well, you might have me there, seeing that most creationist alternative explanations that I can recall either rely on the Supernatural (in which case no one can see how it works, because it defies normal cause and effect) or simply show a poor grasp of the scientific principles involved
Are you sure that's Truth?
Well you do have me there. I don't care whether you believe your model is "The Truth." I know that it is not "The Truth." No model is "The Truth." All models have "flaws" -- anomalies, oversimplifications, etc. We don't know "The Truth." We can't know "The Truth." We can't handle "The Truth."
Yes my professor could be telling us lies.
Why wouldn't I say that? Everybody lies. But I have no reason to believe he would spend his entire career intentionally misinforming his students. And so I do not suspect without reason that he would deliberately do so.
But is it possible that he is blind to a flaw in his reasoning, and too proud to recognize constructive criticism. This can happen to anyone -- even a pastor or a Bible scholar.
In science, that is the purpose of peer review. Others who know the procedure investigate his methods, and re-examine his raw data. Some attempt to reproduce his work with a new set of data. Even if the one professor continues in his delusion, the consensus of the scientific community is kept relatively free of that malady.
IT ... DOES ... NOT ... MATTER ... !
When I am using a model that was originally based on sound interpretation of the raw data,
and the model used a logically sound inference from that data to expand its scope,
and that inference led the model to give consistently reliable results in a different area, it does not matter if the inference concerned is too far removed in time, space, or both to verify. The important thing is that the model is useful.
Nature is merciful, except when she's literally blowing people off the earth, drowning them, or opening up and swallowing them; not to mention lesser things like stinging them, stabbing them, burning them, or freezing them; and if they happen to beat the odds, she will make sure they die of old age.
Is this one more thing "evolutionists" supposedly never say? Or just something to close your post with.
Because scientists are well acquainted with the cruelty of Nature. They even refer to it often, though they usually call it "the perversity of the inanimate."
