God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[The Grand Nudger]

There was evidence there that suggested that Genesis was an factually accurate description of material creation? Somehow I, and the rest of the thinking world, missed it. Let's just go through Genesis line by line, you go ahead and offer up the evidence you feel supports the narrative, and I'll respond with what we actually do know, and exactly how this conflicts with Genesis. The density of Mercury is not an issue that speaks, in any way, for a literal translation of Genesis as material creation. That you have somehow convinced yourself that it does is astonishing to me. The density of Mercury was a point of data that required an explanation, given our conclusions (mostly from the Hubble, and not to do with Mercury) regarding the formation of planets. An explanation has been offered. It is unsatisfactory to you, but it fits our observations. Now, we may in the future have to modify this explanation. There is no claim of infallibility within the realm of scientific discovery. This will be the last time I explain this to you. That science may be unable to account for, or explain every detail of our universe, in every possible situation, in no way leaves science unable to weigh in on your claim. Genesis is not a factually accurate description of material creation, the origins of life on this planet, or the early history of our species. These statements can and have been demonstrated. Many, many times. What has never been demonstrated, is the claim to the contrary. That's what you need to demonstrate. That's what you need to provide evidence for. That's the only sort of post I'm going to put any effort into responding to going forward.

Notice the long list of references at the bottom of that page? Your gripe is with them, not me. Have at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_a...of_planets

You misunderstand me, I don't think that creation scientists have a bias. I don't think that they are scientists. To be a scientist, you have to actually engage in a little thing called "the scientific method" which they clearly have not done. If they had, their theories would be in actual scientific journals. They would be contributing to the overall pool of human knowledge. They are not, and they do not. What they do, is invoke a skyhook to compensate for the lack of actual evidence for their theories. Notice that I do not require them to be correct, only to participate. We learn by being shown to be wrong as well (or, at least some of us do). These people have removed themselves from consideration. I had nothing to do with that decision.

"Explanatory power is the ability of a theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to." God, as a theory, has no such ability. I understand that you believe that it does. Unfortunately, it does not. What dimension are you typing from, where the existence of god is not in question? Perhaps you would like to ignore any inconvenience that does not fit with your "well crafted argument, rife with explanatory power", but I'm not interested in capitulating to you, or any other god hawker. You have a burden to meet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power

Science works. Magic does not. That's what we like to call evidence. You don't have to take my word for this, of course. Feel free to devise your own experiment, or replicate the experiments of others. Check your conclusions against their own. I could direct you to an organization offering a substantial sum of money that would more than compensate you for any experiment you're likely to engage in, were you able to provide evidence for the "supernatural".

(It's cute to see you so quickly retreat into whatever fortress you feel philosophy provides for your absurd beliefs, whats wrong with the battlefield you chose? Grounds not quite what you thought they would be? Providing evidence for a claim is more difficult than arguing for your opinion, isn't it.)