I have already posted. You can't tell exactly what happened at the moment of creation and even the current theories already hedge by asserting that the laws of physics would not apply at those early stages.
This is why I'm not sure you fully understand those theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe at all. The big bang doesn't explain first cause, "the moment of creation." It is not the big bang that asserts the laws of physics break down but the gap between quantum physics and clasical physics. Clasical physics breaks down when you are studying a short enough period of time or high energy.
And you still didn't post an answer.
Soon I'm going to start assuming that you have nothing to back up your statements with.
So, to re-ask my question,
What specific parts of the big bang and evolution can not be tested?
That is because these are words that already have definitions and the problems could as easily be looked up by you as me. We have discussed them enough for you to remember. You cannot just shrug off the possibility of conscious design and creation.
Wahoo, they have definitions.
Now, can you explain how they make up your argument?
I have posted repeatedly that the assumption is either that God does not exist OR that he only operates in the deistic sense. I have never said they theories themselves say anything.
And I have posted repeatedly that you are wrong. I even posted more possibilities, but you ignored them to focus on one, God faking evidence. Go back and read what I said again.
Isn't it possible for God to operate in a way that science can't detect?
Isn't it possible God uses the naturalistic things science studies as tools to change his world?
Both Judaism and Christianity have long histories of living in peace with other religions that ran the countries they lived in. There should be nothing offensive to anyone in observing the rituals of another religion unless perhaps they involved human sacrifice (which some religions have) or other truly filthy behaviors.
Wow, you dodged away from wicca fast.
So, it would be acceptable for you if your childs school had a ritual at each game asking the God and Goddess to watch over all?
Next post:
Are you speaking of the 'scare' and 'paranoia' regarding a large nation taking up the mantle of Marx, who claimed that religion was 'the opitate of the masses'? Could you possibly be a little less pretentious?
Not quite. I am speaking of the scare and paranoia as a result of people claiming that the communists had infiltrated the government. McCarthy is famous for his witch-hunts. Where to say anything out of line with "american values" ment you could lose your job.
Big, fat, huge, obvious straw man. But then again, that's more or less the standard mode of operation for atheists on this subject.
It is a strawman how?
He was suggesting that we have fallen from the first public schools. I was pointing out that that isn't always the case. Just because the first public schools taught it, doesn't mean it was right.
People praying on an intercom is not the establishment of a state religion. The state establishing a state religion is the establishment of a state religion. At the time the constitution was written, certain states DID have state religions, so one has to assume either the founders were idiots or they intended the Federal government to be able to tolerate various state religions. It could hardly be plainer if it were painted on my forehead.
Nope, but it is supporting one religion over another.
Actually the original constitution wasn't ment for states at all but the federal government. No matter what they felt about the state religions, it was beyond the constitution. But since then we have become a much more united states, operating more as one, the constitution has been expanded to the states as well.
I imagine the very instant they are able, the atheists will change the law to forbid religion altogether, since even as a tiny minority they tend to insist on having their way to begin with. Certainly if the decline in Christianity is accompanied by an increase in Islaam you can expect your precious right to be an atheist to be obliterated utterly, and your smug attitude about Christians may finally take a sleight turn, a little too late.
You completely ignored the part where I mentioned that the prayer case was brought by a Mormon and a Catholic. It's not always the evil atheists that are fighting against the good christians for religious rights.
Yes, how dare the minority insist on having equal rights, evil evil minority.
What was your point anyway, besides scare tactics based on your slanted view?
No one said it was to be a theocracy. See above for the evidence it was to be a Christian nation, or at the very least one where Christians would be able to live and work without prejudice against them.
And they still can, as long as they don't try to force christianity on others or the government. Just like all other religions. Equal.
Equal as in equal, not equal as in, "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."
YES! But there is no such majority! That's not our history!
They get glossed over, sir, because they are ugly, obvious, redliculous red herring, straw man arguments that get tossed out so often it makes people want to yank their hair out. This nation is NOT Hindu, it is NOT Wiccan, it is NOT Atheistic, it is NOT Muslim. So what is YOUR escuse for marginalizing Christianity?
hypothetical.
hypothetical.
I know you know what the word means, can you see it when it comes to you?
As I said, it is amazing how many people can't seem to answer these questions, or understand the idea of a hypothetical question. You ask a question that reverses the shoes and you rarely get an answer, just a lot of ruffled feathers such as above, I wonder why.
Although I give you some credit since you appear to have answered it in the other post.
