This is precious: one for the ages (no pun intended). A young earth creationist who believes "the universe is between 6000-10,000 years old, give or take" http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/dawkins-postmortem.htmlchiding the scientific understanding of someone who merely advocates a hydrotherapeutic spa and backs up all of its elements from reputable scientific literature?First we have Hanes underwear on Michelangelo's David and now this? Any other ridiculous ideas to present to your adoring "we love and eat up anything the man says" fan base, Steve?I suggest you downplay some of these ludicrous aspects of your worldview as you do have some good things to say. It's bad for PR. You're far closer in spirit and mentality to Sungenis's geocentrism than I ever was or am now, since you hold a position on the age of the universe rejected by perhaps 99.9% of all scientists. Well, maybe it's 99.5% . . .
Notice Dave's inability to distinguish between grammatico-historical exegesis and quack science.
Boy, I hope this one takes off. It's going to make for some good entertainment.
"grammatico-historical exegesis" IS quackery at its finest...what are you babbling about, Steve?