Summations Only

Your team thought they had the answers up to about 1750 and most believed them, because belief was all that there was.After that we started to learn things and test them against what the real world was showing us. The honest investigotors into 'truth' then began to understand that the old explanations for how the world is, was wrong. Gradually over a couple of centuries the majority of those old beliefs were supplanted by evidence-based explanations and the vast majority of peope, were taught the new explantions that they could test for themselves and we had the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and the scientific, rational age which has given us all the great things that belief systems reliant on prayer and faith alone couldn't - it's a very, very long list.Your belief system is a throwback to the 18th century, you are a lingering part of a historic problem which will disapear in a few generations, it's only on weird, niche web sites that this nonsense is even spoken about. It's a settled, non-issue as relevant as the flat earth society. You're interesting in the way something odd and rare is interesting - for being just so damn weird. It's what we have museums for.

I'm with Faith on this one. (Those words may not have been said before)It's always puzzled me why believers give a toss for scientific or even philosophical argument. All they need to say is that it's God's work and he can do anything. It's what they believe why try for more? It's almost as if it isn't a good enough explanation even for them.It's highly likely that man will never be able to figure out the something instead of nothing question and if he does, it's going to be in a mathematical form that will be beyond the comprehension of all but a few. Language ceases to be useful with concepts such as 'nothing', people just tie themselves in semantic knots - as you can see here in this discussion.

Are there different threads?

Only when she finally throws in her cards and reveals her hand and says stuff like "if it contradicts the bible, then it's wrong" and "design needs a designer and that's the end of it". They're just statements of belief. I can understandand accept those sorts of statements.

But don't you ever grow tired of the hopelessness of arguing with seriously deluded people who will never be convinced by anything? If Apollo appeared in front of Faith and introduced his father Zeus, mother Leto, and sister Artemis whilst healing her poor sight, she'd find an utterly spurious argument against.

I suppose. It's just not an issue outside the USA - it's a very long lost fight. Even in the US it seems to be a settled legal issue now, every time it pops up it's kicked down pretty easily.

In that case EVC should shut down and we should argue our case on the creationist sites where they actually live rather than arguing repetitive nonsense with Faith and, if we're lucky, one other loonie for the benefit of a few robots.

Hey Mike, science could give a fart about creationism.It's not on any of the millions of working scientists' lists of anything remotely relevant to them. The rules of science were made for other scientists to follow regardless of discipline; if a scientist has found something that he thinks is of interest to science he must follow the rules no matter what it is. The rules have absolutely zip to do with creationists.You have a couple of ways to go with this:1. Ignore science and get on believing whatever you like.2. Show scientifically, using the rules of science, that creationism is science.Personally, I'd go with 1 if only because you've admitted that attempting 2 looks more than a bit tricky - as you say, the hoop is pretty high given what you've got, but it's the same height for everyone.

Hi Dawn, in as much as I can understand any of your posts here (which btw, apart from being incomprehensible have totally avoided providing any information about how creationism is a science) you seem to be saying that unless real science can explain the most complex structure in the known universe then creationsm is a science.Perhaps I've got that wrong?

Dawn has done what s/he always does - waffle incomprehensibly using pseudo-philosophical structures that rarely, if ever, make any logical sense.
S/he then declares her/himself the winner.But where's the beef Dawn?