Summations Only

Could you try to make your ad hominem arguments more coherent? All I can really tell from this mess is that you'd like to make one.

Because designtheorist is literate enough to misinterpret scientists, but not scientifically literate enough to misinterpret actual science.

None of them reply to my point or Stenger's, which you seem to find unanswerable. Of course you did, don't be silly.

Let's not, 'cos they haven't.Maybe you should try to base your argument on true things instead of false things.

I've quoted a number of physicists saying that there is no gravitational force in GR.Hmm, who to believe about physics, physicists or you?

Of course.I note that this is not a reply to my post.

Quite.To expand on my quotations from physicists:Back in the Middle Ages, people would have told you that the natural state of a body was to be at rest. If it moved, some force must be moving it.Following Newton (whose own terminology was somewhat confused, but had the right idea) people came to realize that this was false. The natural state of a body was to move in a straight line at a constant velocity and it took the application of force to make it do something else. Its natural state was to move in a straight line (in Euclidian space).But then along came Einstein and said that the natural state of a body was to move along a geodesic (the equivalent of a straight line) in Einstein's space, (which was not Euclidian but was bent by the presence of mass) and it would take an external force to make it do something else. Newton's "force" of gravity explaining why things didn't move in straight lines was, from this perspective, like the medieval concept of the "force" that explained why things didn't remain at rest. It would take a force to prevent the Earth from orbiting round the Sun; without a force acting on it that is what it would do.

Designtheorist is still lying about Stenger.

But what you said originally was an "intended purpose".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, we've had "designtheorist" misinterpreting scientists, as usual, and "Just being real" rehashing his previous failures concerning "specified information". Same ol' same ol'.As to the question in the title of the OP, maybe and maybe not. Science could certainly find out about particular creator gods, if they existed. For example, fiat creation of species 6,000 years ago would stick out like a sore thumb, and we can definitely reject that version of a "creator god" on scientific grounds. Others would be harder to detect. If someone made the Big Bang go bang and then walked away (and if one were to classify such a being as a god) then in our present state of scientific knowledge we could hardly distinguish that from a case in which something else altogether caused the Big Bang.Hence science allows us to eliminate certain creator gods while leaving us agnostic concerning others. Obviously no-one has yet produced good scientific evidence in favor of a creator god, and this thread, if it serves no other purpose, demonstrates what a mess people make when they try.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.