And, as I've long suspected Gordon, you don't read posts properly. As I said in my previous post, I don't interrogate people on their beliefs, but when they volunteer the fact that they believe something on scientific grounds - I tend to accept that. Perhaps I ought to chnge that approach, and question whenever the idea is used.
You should question of course, since they might be wrong or even if they are correct you might have misunderstood what they told you. Nice try by the way, but you seem to have forgotten what you said earlier to prompt this exchange, which was:
It might well be - as opposed to anything to do with a religious belief, which is (of course) what others seem to want it make to be. Two of the folk were/are of a scientific bent, and (like many here) they insisted that scientific evidence underpinned everything they believed.
Then I asked on what basis, in that since you specifically state 'scientific evidence' is involved it seems reasonable to ask you what this 'scientific evidence' is, since for you to imply these views are informed by science suggests you know something of the relevant science supporting their views - else why would you cite these people.
So, if you don't know anything of the details then for you to accept their arguments as being science-informed does seem, as I said earlier, gullible on your part: especially since they might be wrong, or since you may have misunderstood the scientific basis of their argument. However, if you do know then you should be able to easily answer my 'on what basis' question and we can then consider whether or not their science claim is sound.
Either way, given your evasion of my 'on what basis; question, this smacks of being yet another of your anecdotal claims that contain nothing more that baseless assertion.
