Summations Only

Hi IamJoseph,Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

Hi EWCCC777,About placing quotes in your posts, this is described in the dBCode help, see How to Quote.To everyone,I haven't read to the end of the thread yet, I'm still back at Message 123, but I see this thread picked up around a hundred messages in a single day, so I'd just like to ask everyone to make sure to stay on topic. This is a science thread, and to the extent that God is discussed it must be on the basis of evidence, not belief.Also, about Steven C. Meyer, the argument that his ideas must be taken seriously because he is a scientist is the fallacy of argument from authority. Let's discuss the merits of Meyer's ideas based upon evidence and not upon his standing within the scientific community.Also, concerning definitions, someone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist, not an evolutionist. Many evolutionists believe in God.AbE: I've set this thread to enter summation mode at 300 messages. There will be alerts at 250 and 280 messages.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

Discussion participants are expected to make their arguments in their own words, using links and quotes only as supporting material. The assumption is that each person understands both the rationale and evidence supporting their position. From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
   ​
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

Here at EvC Forum we prefer that people debate using their own words, and we especially prefer that people not pass off the words of others as their own. You're also still using the argument from authority. While what Geoffrey Burbidge believed is interesting information, what's more important is why he believed it.

Hi DesignTheorist,Here at EvC Forum moderators try to keep discussion focused on how the evidence supports an argument or point of view rather than who supports it. This thread is about how Big Bang theory supports belief in a creator or designer, not who supports it. Discussion's primary focus should be on what the evidence tells us and not on what some scientists are telling us the evidence tells us.The argument from authority is a rat hole that diverts attention from the topic. One person says, "X says it's true," another person says, "Y says it's not." Now what? Well, evidence is what.People are demurring from taking up your argument from authority because they expected from your title and opening post ("Therefore, based on current science it is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of creator God or universe Designer.") that you would be arguing from the evidence, and because they understand that arguments from authority are not productive or informative. We're not in the business here of identifying the views with the most enthusiastic expressions of support. We're looking for what the evidence says.If you'd like to propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics about how some scientists endorse belief in a creator or designer then I'd be glad to review it. Moderators here at EvC Forum are not aware of any minimum length requirement for plagiarism. Please clearly indicate any cut-n-pastes. Even better, say things in your own words. Not only did you quote Burbidge out of context, so did all the other websites where the quote occurs. There does not seem to be anywhere on the Internet that identifies when or where or in what context Burbidge said this. Context seems important, since it reads like a sarcastic comment about the eagerness with which his scientific colleagues were embracing not religion but Big Bang theory.But we'd really like to avoid arguments about what Burbidge or any scientist really meant. It's not germane to the topic, and if we keep the focus on the evidence then the evidence can speak for itself.Please, no replies to this message. Issues regarding discussion should be raised over at the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

Hi DesignTheorist,Please, no more quotes, it only invites discussion of what the people quoted really meant. If you would like to propose a thread to discuss what other scientists think then post it to Proposed New Topics and I'll take a look as soon as I can. If what I'm asking seems unreasonable or difficult to understand then please post a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 or send me a PM.

This thread will remain open for anyone else wishing to post their summation or conclusion, but there seemed interest in continuing the discussion, so I suggest that someone post a proposal for a followup thread over at Proposed New Topics.