Something happened when posting this. If it double posted, ignore one of the postings....

Marc P,
I?m glad to hear that you are not a creationist. Maybe I was a tad harsh too soon calling you manipulative and ignorant. Your post, the one I responded to, had some of the typical creationist attributes. I?m referring to 3 issues in that post:

1.
The incorrect quote from Dan M?s message. I have seen so many out of context, or ?convenient? miss-quoting by creationists that it?s not funny anymore.

2.
And this: ?People who say religion and science don't mix know neither very well?. I?m sorry Marc P, but they just DO NOT MIX.
You said: ?At their core, both are a search for the truth, empirical truth or theological truth.?
The reason that they don?t mix ? ever - is that the METHOD itself of the search of the truth is so fundamentally different. Anyone that don?t grasp that difference, I guess can believe that science and religion mix ? but no, they don?t. There may be scientists who are religious. But if they mix religion with their work, they are not adhering to scientific methods. There is no way around this ? they do not mix.

3.
And also; the comment of how little religious knowledge atheists have. Oh, please.
This is just plain dumb. Why would an atheist not take interest in religious matters? Then again, why would an atheist care about religious matters just as, and I?m guessing here, a Muslim may not give a hoot about Catholic knowledge?

In reply to my post you said:
?Glad we're sticking to the issues and the science here!?

You seem to be the one who want to argue the non-scientific issue whether science and religion mix ? from a scientific perspective they do not ? ever. But you are of course free to think so.