Shining One,
In point of fact, I have read every one of your posts. I have analyzed them each for their argument style, continuity of message, lack of contradiction, and basis.
Argument style is very weak. Except where you are reciting your doctrines of faith within your posts, you employ indecisive wording couched in ambiguity with a smattering of lofty verbiage. Presumably, you imagine this conveys the impression that you know what you are talking about.
As to continuity of message, I can only tip my hat. Unlike Scholar, you have convinced me that you genuinely believe what you type here. Your message is unflinchingly constant, if a bit musty and tired in its execution.
As far as I can determine, you do not contradict yourself. This is a mark of someone who is truly sincere in their beliefs and is a trait that I very much admire. You seem to be careful to allow room for your thoughts to change in many respects, except where you are reciting your doctrines of faith within your posts.
Basis, however, basis seems utterly missing. You adamantly state as fact those things which you believe to be fact and seem to expect everyone to agree that these things are fact, then you ridicule and harass any who disagree with your assessment. That isn't how debate works. Hell, that isn't even how conversations work. In my experience, this shortcoming in communication style comes from one of two sources:
(1) You don't know how to establish what you believe to someone else and you are ridiculing others out of a sense of frustration over their not "getting" what you haven't clearly shown in the first place.
or
(2) You know your subject so well that you can no longer think from the standpoint of someone who doesn't agree with your view of the surrounding issues. This leads to ridiculing from a sense of superiority born of becoming an expert in your field.
From analyzing your posts, I lean toward the first explanation in your case. However, I've never met you and don't know your credentials/background/etc. so I am not passing judgment on you. Not that I would anyway, mind you. BTW, I don't care what you were talking about. You asked me a question that you probably intended as rhetorical. The resulting impression left a logical fallacy on the table as support for your views on using Science to "bolster" faith. In my estimation, what you and others of your persuasion doing is acting on a silly notion founded on anything BUT Scripture.
I simply answered your rhetorical question and from that answer you derive, "You have not paid any attention to my posts. You don't have the foggiest idea what I am talking about." A bit freehanded with the assumption there, aren't we Shining One?
OldSoul