The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
them

"Ken"  wrote

> The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
> same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
> them

No, not creation and science - Creationism and science. Even then there are 
some pretty useful sentences, like "Creationism is not science", or " anyone 
with a good understanding of science should realise there is nothing of 
value in Creationism".

Creationism is a conspiracy theory for the religious.

Steve M

On May 14, 2:28 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Ken"  wrote
>
> > The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
> > same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
> > them
>
> No, not creation and science - Creationism and science. Even then there are
> some pretty useful sentences, like "Creationism is not science", or " anyone
> with a good understanding of science should realise there is nothing of
> value in Creationism".
>
> Creationism is a conspiracy theory for the religious.
>
> Steve M

You're completely correct. but that fundy fool always includes a link
to some phony creationscience link, so I was refering to that

On May 14, 12:25 pm, Ken  wrote:
> The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
> same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
> them

REPLY: Creation is automatically 'B.C.' , when someone doesnt want the
evidence, doesnt want to go seeking it, cant afford for a personal
Creator with infinite morality to exist,  and feels its an affront for
anyone telling him how to live , act, and talk .  Atheism is about
personal freedom and Creationism is a fly in the ointment.

On May 15, 12:07 pm, "Dumbfuck dave, well known webtv idiot and mouth
foamer wrote: the usual dribble
Speaking of fundy nutsacks, looks who pops up

BTW----Why don''t you repeat your latest PHONY & DOCTORED QUOTE?
You know, the one from Albert Einstein
The one where you ADDED "than a creator" to the end of an actual
quote.

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the
side
of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature" (added
by
Dimwit) than a creator

Why do you feel it's OK to lie?
Is it because you feel that the ends justifies the means, no matter
how deceitful?
What's that thing about "bearing false witness"?

I probably should add what Albert said next, to avoid ANY confusion

"To be sure, the doctrine of a
personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted,
in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take
refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet
been able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the
representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also
fatal.
For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light
but
only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with
incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the
ethical
good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the
doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and
hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of
priests"

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

"Ken"  wrote

>You're completely correct. but that fundy fool always includes a link
>to some phony creationscience link, so I was refering to that.

Creation science is a scam, because it isn't science. That is what is wrong.

Steve M

On May 15, 4:51 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Ken"  wrote
>
> >You'reCreation science is a scam, because it isn't science. That is what is wrong.

Steve M


 completely correct. but that fundy fool always includes a link
> >to some phony creationscience link, so I was refering to that.
>
> Creation science is a scam, because it isn't science. That is what is wrong.
>
> Steve M

REPLY:  'Creation science is a scam, because it isn't science. That is
what is wrong.

Steve M '

If the 250 anthropics arent Creation Science, then tell us how
accidents made them all come into existence (together), and  all rely
on one another and work in unison.  Tell us how 'Naturalism'
accomplished this please.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  'Creation science is a scam, because it isn't science. That is
> what is wrong.
> 
> Steve M '
> 
> If the 250 anthropics arent Creation Science, then tell us how
> accidents made them all come into existence (together), and  all rely
> on one another and work in unison.  Tell us how 'Naturalism'
> accomplished this please.

You are correct - they are not creation science.

Firstly, the "250 anthropics" (choose a number, any number...) don't 
relate to what is proposed by creationism.
Secondly, assuming there is something we "don't know" then pointing 
this out doesn't constitute evidence for anything - it is the old 
argument from ignorance again.
Thirdly, creation science - as with intelligent design - doesn't 
publish any body of work to support its position, so it just isn't 
science at all.

Creationism, creation science and intelligent design have all been 
found to be religious ideas and not science by the US courts.

If you want to present your 'god' hypothesis then present real, 
positive, convincing evidence for the existence of such an entity.

regards, Ian

wrote

>If the 250 anthropics arent Creation Science, then tell us how
>accidents made them all come into existence (together), and  all rely
>on one another and work in unison.

This is an example of  false logic and reasoning. If one isn't true it 
doesn't mean the other is the only position possible.
As philosopher David Hume pointed out in the eighteenth century, the fact 
that we cannot explain some phenomenon naturally does not allow us to 
conclude that it had to be a miracle.

What 250 anthropics? You've been asked to detail these before and failed.

Science has revealed how the Big Bang started the Universe. There are three 
significant pieces of supporting evidence in favour the Big Bang.

Science is about cause and effect. That is how things happen and science 
find how things occur not just by looking at the effect, but by finding a 
cause. The Big Bang caused the Universe to come into existance.

Christian Science is a scam because it is founded by a scam artist, Dwayne 
Gish. His lectures have been followed by biologists and they have pointed 
out mistakes he makes, which he admits. Next lecture he repeats the same 
mistakes so he knowingly lies to his audience.
Christian Scientists just reel off a lot of claims - unsupported allegations 
offering no real science. It is yet another vain attempt by overzealous 
religious who can't accept that the Bible may be wrong.

Steve M

"Steve Marshall"  wrote

> Christian Science is a scam because it is founded by a scam artist, Dwayne 
> Gish.

Oh no that was Creation Science. My mistake.
Christian Science is that Mary Baker cult.

Steve M

X-No-Archive: yes

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:R-OdnV1ydrKRZrDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
>  wrote
>
>>If the 250 anthropics arent Creation Science, then tell us how
>>accidents made them all come into existence (together), and  all rely
>>on one another and work in unison.
>
> This is an example of  false logic and reasoning. If one isn't true it 
> doesn't mean the other is the only position possible.
> As philosopher David Hume pointed out in the eighteenth century, the fact 
> that we cannot explain some phenomenon naturally does not allow us to 
> conclude that it had to be a miracle.

> What 250 anthropics? You've been asked to detail these before and failed.

Will we get them, or any of them,  this time....??


> Science has revealed how the Big Bang started the Universe. There are 
> three significant pieces of supporting evidence in favour the Big Bang.
>
> Science is about cause and effect. That is how things happen and science 
> find how things occur not just by looking at the effect, but by finding a 
> cause. The Big Bang caused the Universe to come into existance.


Did you notice this week that the RCC 'astronomer'  has come to the 
conclusion that there WAS a big bang and evolution has occurred.......!!
[they are obviously retreating to the barricade of what came before the big 
bang and god is infinite]
Anyway, not that the catholic church is much to go on but..... it does also 
show how far away from practical religion the fundamentalists have 
become.....


> Christian Science is a scam because it is founded by a scam artist, Dwayne 
> Gish. His lectures have been followed by biologists and they have pointed 
> out mistakes he makes, which he admits. Next lecture he repeats the same 
> mistakes so he knowingly lies to his audience.

> Christian Scientists just reel off a lot of claims - unsupported 
> allegations offering no real science. It is yet another vain attempt by 
> overzealous religious who can't accept that the Bible may be wrong.

Well yes.  But "may be wrong" is probably not sufficient......
It is unequivocably errant in many, many respects and in many, many places.
It is, of course, only to be expected as it was written by humankind, 
translated and re-written over centuries [ *it*  by the way stretches to 
hundreds of versions of course] to suit theological and political 
aspirations of the time.  There are hundreds of contradictions and basic 
modern understanding tells us - something an omnipotent and omnipresent 
creator god would have known all along such as... the sun does not go round 
the earth...!     Or the earth is at the centre of the universe.  Or a man 
could live inside {..live inside!!!  he couldn't even get past the throat of 
any whale in the world, they are tiny}a whale for three days..!!
It's laughable.   So is chriatian science and so are the fundamentalists 
that believe all this stuff literally.   Mindless and shockingly errant.


Mark