Religious

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes...all degenerates are liars. But not God's saints. Christians love truth and hate lies and falsehoods.

And you did tell a bald-faced lie. I never once said or even remotely hinted that science should have a religious bias. What I said is that science should have given both models a fair hearing. A truly fair and unbiased mind would have tested both models, not just one. But the science community has steadfastly maintained that God is not necessary to understand the universe.

Boxcar

Oh boy...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes...all degenerates are liars. But not God's saints. Christians love truth and hate lies and falsehoods.

And you did tell a bald-faced lie. I never once said or even remotely hinted that science should have a religious bias. What I said is that science should have given both models a fair hearing. A truly fair and unbiased mind would have tested both models, not just one. But the science community has steadfastly maintained that God is not necessary to understand the universe.

You are still an idiot.

Both models have been given a fair hearing. Do you think young earth creationists like you claiming a 6,000 year old universe is in any manner, shape or form is fair? It is a dismal failure that has no scientific standing. Just as a literal interpretations of the biblical Flood story. As always have no credibility discussing science.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are still an idiot.

Both models have been given a fair hearing. Do you think young earth creationists like you claiming a 6,000 year old universe is in any manner, shape or form is fair? It is a dismal failure that has no scientific standing. Just as a literal interpretations of the biblical Flood story. As always have no credibility discussing science.

From the very outset, the science community has outright reject the necessity for bothering with the creation model because the scientific community said it's not NECESSARY to postulate a Creator, since the universe can be understood in strictly materialistic terms.

Tell me: Did Darwin postulate the creation model? Did that apostate who had axes to grind against God bother with rigorous testing of the creation model?

And I'm the idiot?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Tell us once again how old the universe is. Your whole case about giving the creation model a fair and scientific case rests on your answer. That and all the other scientific crapola you have sadly said over the years.

Pathetic!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Oh boy...

Exactly my sentiments when self-righteous Actor declared that he didn't misrepresent my position on the creation model.

Truly, it was written, "Let God be true and every man a liar!" And that includes our resident physicist and wanna-be "honest Abe".

This is what I wrote in my 11872:

But you have no case to rest, sir. Pure scientific inquiry with honest intentions would not omit the creation model from its investigation. Honest science would want to consider and give equal time to both models. The fact that it does not proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that science has an anti-God agenda. Therefore, evolution is junk science. It's not worth all the paper upon which it's written!

There is nothing in the above paragraph that even remotely hints that I expect science to have a bias toward God, religion or the creation model. Only an idiot would think that after I railed against a bias for strictly an evolutionary and materialistic understanding of the universe that I would then turn right around and call for a bias toward God, religion or the creation model.

Tell you bud Actor that I rest my case. He's guilty as charged!

Boxcar

[hcap]

Any conversation with boxcar is a total waste of time and energy.

Begone to Iggyland foul spirit!

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Exactly my sentiments when self-righteous Actor declared that he didn't misrepresent my position on the creation model.

Truly, it was written, "Let God be true and every man a liar!" And that includes our resident physicist and wanna-be "honest Abe".

This is what I wrote in my 11872:

But you have no case to rest, sir.

Honest science would want to consider and give equal time to both models. The fact that it does not proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that science has an anti-God agenda. Therefore, evolution is junk science. It's not worth all the paper upon which it's written!

There is nothing in the above paragraph that even remotely hints that I expect science to have a bias toward God, religion or the creation model. Only an idiot would think that after I railed against a bias for strictly an evolutionary and materialistic understanding of the universe that I would then turn right around and call for a bias toward God, religion or the creation model.

Tell you bud Actor that I rest my case. He's guilty as charged!

Boxcar

Just because I enjoy wasting time, I'll point out that science could NOT include the "creation" model in their inquiry's into the origin of the universe because to do so would require that they presuppose the existence of God. This is fine for theologians for scientist, not so much.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Tell you bud Actor that I rest my case. He's guilty as charged!

What about Hickock and Smith?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

Just because I enjoy wasting time, I'll point out that science could NOT include the "creation" model in their inquiry's into the origin of the universe because to do so would require that they presuppose the existence of God. This is fine for theologians for scientist, not so much.

And so...? Your point is what? That the only alternative left to those poor befuddled scientists was to presuppose the non-existence of God? And in your mind that is fair?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What about Hickock and Smith?

Take your act elsewhere, Actor. I will have no part with a liar.

Boxcar

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Take your act elsewhere, Actor. I will have no part with a liar.

Boxcar

It is unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into name calling and ad hominem attacks, lead by Boxcar, but others have followed suit, and I do not exclude myself.

Perhaps it was inevitable that a thread about religion should follow this path. Perhaps it is not possible to have a rational discussion of a subject in which so many (all?) have a tremendous emotional investment.

I don't believe anyone here is a liar. I do not believe that anyone here is consciously trying to deceive anyone.

In short, on this thread, civility and courtesy seem to have died. Can we possibly get it back? Can we have an amnesty and everyone put their hurt feelings on the back burner?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Hank

Just because I enjoy wasting time, I'll point out that science could NOT include the "creation" model in their inquiry's into the origin of the universe because to do so would require that they presuppose the existence of God. This is fine for theologians for scientist, not so much.

However if one makes concrete prediction of natural law based on religious beliefs, they better get their act together. Boxcar has painted himself into absurd corners dozens of times.

[Actor]

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Take your act elsewhere, Actor. I will have no part with a liar.

Boxcar

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not to worry....99% of People who believe in evolution, can't define it or prove it either....

====================

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims to not believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked):

Richard Dawkins - Put Your Money on Evolution - New York Times - April 9, 1999 p.3


Well, if that isn't the height of arrogance, self delusion, pretentiousness, and condescension, then I don't know what is...

======================================
excerpt: from an interview by Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins...:

https://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?op...test&Itemid=28

Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein:(voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.

Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

Ben Stein: But, but

Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

Ben Stein: voiceover) So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers, such as God.