Re: OT the rgp liberal brain trust




Travel (Enthusiast) Post #135 of 164 (17 views) Copy Shortcut |
Private Reply Sep 18, 2008, 7:42 AM
Re: OT the rgp liberal brain trust Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Pepe Papon Usenet Poster
Post #130 of 134 (3 views) Copy Shortcut Sep 18, 2008, 2:35 AM
Re: OT the rgp liberal brain trust Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:36:14 -0500, Travel <> wrote:

The Big Bang theory has been used as a foil in rebuttal and criticism
of creationism time after time.

'Occasionally, it's been used that way by an extremem fringe of
atheists, but it's illogical to do so."

That's not even remotely true. Feel free to reread the thread. The Big
Bang is the "go to" argument of the main stream left wing.

"There's no contradiction
between the Big Bang and ID."

The contradiction is that there's opposition to allowing Intelligent
Design theory in schools. The Big Bang doesn't meet a definition of
"theory" with regard to the creation of the Universe without answering
what existed before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is just a theory about
an event that they theorize happened somewhere in time.



It would be one thing if they could answer the question of: "then,
what
existed before the Big Bang?" but they can't. They don't know. Zero
idea. So, given that, Intelligent Design, or a supreme being of some
kind is at least as plausible a theory for the creation of the
Universe.

"There are two problems with this. One is that Intelligent Design is
not a theory."

Either is the Big Bang with regard to the creation of the Universe.


"If you doubt this, look up the definition of "theory".

I think it's you who neeeds to look up definitions



"Two is that ID doesn't solve the problem of what came before."

It doesn't have to, nor does it try to explain "what came before"
That's kinda the point. The Big Bang doesn't either, therefore
Intelligent Design is as good as an explanation as any.

The difference is, of course, is that Intelligent Design opens up the
posibility of a supreme being of some sort. The left wing is rabidly
opposed to anything suggesting the credibility of religion.


"If you
need to postulate a Creator to explain what came before the Big Bang,
then by the same logic, you need to explain what came before the
Creator."

Not anymore than you have to explain what natural causes existed before
the Big Bang.

The point of the supreme being possibility is that there wouldn't be a
scientific explanation.


As usual, the left wing won't hear of it. They won't recognize any
explanation for the creation of the Universe but their own bogus,
godless theory. That's politics.

"It has nothing to do with the left wing. It has to do with science"

It has everything to do with the left wing. They seek to exclude the
discussion of all posibilities of the creation of the Universe outside
of their godless agenda assertions.


"vs. faith. The two are not incompatible. It's just that it's
important to distinguish one from the other. The Big Bang theory is
science."

Intelligent design isn't religion, there's no need to distiguish it
based on "faith". Neither the Big Bang nor Intelligent can explain the
answer to creation of the Universe. But, if one assertion is that it
has to be by natural causes, and other assertiion that it could be by a
supreme being, I think they both should be recognized in schools and
public discourse.



'The Big Bang theory is science that doesn't have anything to do with
explaining the creation of the Universe.'

But, yet, it's used as propaganda in discrediting all possiblty of a
supreme being.


'It doesn't apply. It's merely a guess about a universal event.'

That's my point.


"ID is faith, and therefore does not belong in a science."

The Big Bang doesn't belong in the discussion about the creation of the
Universe, but it's used to keep Intelligent Design out of the
discussion.




What existed before the Big Bang?...they don't know. But, they assert,

they're adamant, that there can't possibly be a god: "just look at
science" they say. Well, that pretty much bring us full circle,
doesn't
it. Science can't answer the question.



"Again, neither can religion. What existed before God? How did God
get there?"

It doesn't attempt to answer that question. It's an alternative
explanation to the universe being created by natural causes that
excludes a supreme being possibility.

If the creation of the universe by natural means is asserted in
schools, then the Intelligent Design alternative should be included.
Remember, the creation of the universe can't be answered by science, so
it's not teaching science to assert that the creation of the universe
HAS to be by a natural phenomenon.


It's all about left wing censorship, religion bigotry, hypocrisy, and
the fear of religion as a voting block; as well as religion
contributing to a stable society that can't be politically controlled.


........................................................................
..........

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
.