1 - 9
You're setting up a false dichotomy, and then destroying the straw man representing the "losing side." What you are saying is this: the way to defend the faith of your child is to tell them the Scriptures are in error about fact (because modern science says so), in order to preserve the idea that the Scriptures are true in "spirit." How long will it take for the average person to move from the idea that if science says Creation didn't happen then Genesis 1 is a non-factual story containing spiritual truth to the idea that if modern science says we have no souls then the entirety of the Scriptures are false? You can defend the truthfulness of the Scripture as accurate in both ways. You can build a Christianity that takes the point and the literal historical account both seriously. It's difficult to see how to build a Christianity where you take the spiritual point seriously, while discarding the historical events. Paul says in Romans that if God lies about his promises to Israel, then we can't trust God in his promises to us. We can extend this to say -- if God lies about history, then we shouldn't trust him on salvation.
So, what I'm getting from all the homosexuals here is a simple argument: sexual behavior is genetic, and hence cannot be controlled. Are you really sure you want to take that argument to the bitter end? Are you sure? The second thing I'm hearing is this -- marriage is about love, and nothing else. Again, are you really ready to take that argument to the bitter end? Are you sure?
Read Godel. The rest of your comment is similarly silly and...
Science is not built on consensus, but rather observation. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world believes a particular thing, what matters is if you can prove it. Evolution cannot neither be proven nor disproven based on actual observation, so it it outside the realm of science.
When you begin with an ad hominim, you've already lost the argument.
You've neatly constructed a straw man, and then destroyed it. Steve Deace isn't arguing for the existence of God, but rather showing how Nye's arguments are a species of the same sort of argument you claim he's making -- he's saying, "Bill Nye is arguing for science in the gaps." The reality is that all systems of thought must deal with gaps. You might want to look up Godel's Theorem, which shows that no system can prove itself from within itself. Even science and evolution must rely on something outside science and evolution to provide their foundations.
In response to:

Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Ultimately Fail

riw Wrote: Jun 28, 2013 2:43 PM
How can you "consent" or "not consent" to something to which you're genetically bound to do? How can you square the concept of consent with the idea that you can't help being a homosexual? Either you have control of your actions, or you don't. If you don't, then "consent" doesn't play a role at all in sex --it's just the more powerful doing what they want with the less powerful. If consent plays a role, then the entire argument of the homosexual marriage proponents should collapse in the ash heap of reality...
In response to:

Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Ultimately Fail

riw Wrote: Jun 28, 2013 2:38 PM
Let's actually step back and take a look at what you just said. You said, "leave your morality (religion) out of politics, because it doesn't belong there. The government needs to recognize gay marriage as a matter of morality." Can't you see that you're just talking about your morality against mine? That you're trying to say, "my morality is right, yours is wrong," all the while saying, "keep your morality out of the discussion?"
In response to:

The GOP -- Not a Club For Christians

riw Wrote: Dec 12, 2012 7:09 AM
"....particularly given how little religion has to do with the policy priorities of the day." I can't see how anyone gets to this point --believing that religion has nothing to do with public policy. I think it might be because Goldberg thinks you can detach religious belief from what he might call "religion," like going to church and having invocations. But it simply won't work in the long run --getting rid of "religion" in the public space essentially says, "religious belief has no impact on moral values," because it's clearly not true.
1 - 9