(April 18, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Cherubim Wrote:(April 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You clearly did not read the heavily-cited article to which I referred you.
You don't get to "interpret" the data in a way that conflicts with testable reality, and call it valid. Sorry.
Finally, what in the world makes you think the author(s) of that article/website are atheists? I happen to personally know (well, have met on numerous occasions) the head of the NSCE, and I know she's a Christian. She is also an evolutionary biologist and (now retired) professor.
You interpret the data yourself. Every single human being on this earth interprets the data based on their beliefs.
I have given examples of this twice now. Read those examples.
You claim to have a "background" in science, and yet you obviously have no idea how science actually works.
There may be things still open to interpretation, but the Polonium halos example you gave is not one of them.
It was an idea that was proven dead-wrong by a mountain of later research... yet your "team" continues to cite it. Why?
Atheists and Christians both (also Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, etc.) are evolutionary biologists. They agree with me about the subject, because scientists will only accept something that has been sufficiently demonstrated, and only to the extent to which it has been demonstrated. The only way they could have an agenda that agrees is if you assert that people from all nations, religious backgrounds, and personal ideologies would form some sort of "scientific conspiracy" to discredit your particular faith (even those who belong to it).
The only people who agree with you have overtly stated that they have an agenda they wish to pursue, belong to one particular religious tradition which they must affirm in order to be a member of the group, and that they are willing to pursue it at any cost.
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
