Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/god?

[Howard Beale]

Are you implying that God is not Omnipotent?

Are you implying that God is not Omniscient?

Are you implying that God is not Perfect?

You appear to be in disagreement with what I posted, yet you refuse to elucidate. Is not God all three attributes?

As I said, if She is, then free will is not possible. Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself, ie explain how a free choice can be made when the being that established the basis for the alleged choice already knows the outcome, and not only knows the outcome but knows the fullest ramifications of that choice, down to knowing exactly which sperms were the ones that would create Adolf Hitler and Hillary Clinton.

Which attribute will you bastardize to enable free will to exist?

Your concept of “God” is the straw man I was referring to. There are understandings of God that are not in conflict with free will. In ancient times natural disasters were seen as God’s punishment. That was because of an ancient concept of God. The reasoning in much of this thread parallels that ancient thinking. God is projected into the duality of the human word, given human and super-human characteristics, then believed in with arrogant self-righteousness or attacked with the reverse. If the concept of God is altered, the argument on both sides falls apart.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

“God made man in his own image and likeness and man returned the favor.”

I am simply saying that God is not a he or a she or an it. We fall into the trap of defining God to fit our purposes and then responding accordingly. In the instance of your post, you chose to use a word that is rooted in the concept of human limitation (omnipotent), another word rooted in human knowledge (omniscient) and a third word rooted in human inadequacy (perfection). The most significant and yet common error we make is to limit God to human characteristics and their opposites. We often project that God exists with “power” in the sense that humans have power. Omnipotence only exists as the opposite of powerlessness. Omniscience only exists as the opposite of being void of knowledge. Perfection exists only as an opposite of imperfection. My understanding of God is that God exists outside the human realm of opposites.

You are addressing and rebutting (and rightly so) a specific concept of God. My point – perhaps poorly made – was that this concept is not the only understanding of God. There are understandings of God that are not incompatible with human free will.

I haven't limited my concepts of "God" to anything, I've merely limited my posts here to what others might be able to understand.

You do realize God is white, don't you?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Universe WAS made according to God's plan. We accept it on faith that although he allows us free will, he can also see into the future. It may not be impossible if you think that maybe he's outside of our time line or that he sees everything happening at once. I'm not saying this is how it works but this is where faith comes in.

I got a piece of "Russian Laser Art", a small parallelopiped of glass with point fractures burned into it with a laser. The image is globe of the earth, and from my outside view can see North America from the inside.

Of course I'm not only perfectly capable of envisioning the concept of an external God viewing the universe as a whole, I'm clearly doing a better job of it than you. If God is timeless and is also capable of seeing the entire timeline of the entire universe, then clearly in God's view the universe She created is a static hyperdimensional structure and our illusion of the passage of time is simply a product of our limited capacity to view the higher dimensions.

 

[George_Washington]

I haven't limited my concepts of "God" to anything, I've merely limited my posts here to what others might be able to understand.

You do realize God is white, don't you?

LOL You're joking, right?

 

[George_Washington]

I got a piece of "Russian Laser Art", a small parallelopiped of glass with point fractures burned into it with a laser. The image is globe of the earth, and from my outside view can see North America from the inside.

Of course I'm not only perfectly capable of envisioning the concept of an external God viewing the universe as a whole, I'm clearly doing a better job of it than you. If God is timeless and is also capable of seeing the entire timeline of the entire universe, then clearly in God's view the universe She created is a static hyperdimensional structure and our illusion of the passage of time is simply a product of our limited capacity to view the higher dimensions.

I'm not sure if "static hyperdimensional structure" is an actual physics term or if you just invented it. In math it's possible to have an infinite number number of dimensions so quite possibly there are more dimensions past time. But physics tells us that time is a real entity and so your assertion that time is an illusion is false. We might not be able to view higher dimensions, I don't know, but that doesn't mean that time doesn't actually exist. Time is a dimension in itself. So obviously you're not, "clearly understanding God" better than I am as you claim. There's no reason for us to get into a futile contest over who can understand God better or the Universe we live in. The only people that can come close are people that have backgrounds in physics. Unless you do, than you can't claim to be better at it than I.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

LOL You're joking, right?

I said:

"You do realize God is white, don't you?"

And it's only mostly in jest.

God is everything. That means God is all colors. Color is the impression upon the eye of the received eletromagnetic frequencies.

A white object is reflecting all colors equally (or emitting them).

Since God is all colors, She has to be a white as white can be.

Of course, He could be black if he absorbs all, but that would make him a black hole...

But bear in mind I said "white", not "caucasian".

Now as for the "time" business. You said

It may not be impossible if you think that maybe he's outside of our time line or that he sees everything happening at once.

My beliefs on the God issue are that he's an invention of the human instinct, without any connection to outside reality.

I was merely taking your assertion that he's "outside of our time" and drawing the details you omitted.

You are aware that in this Universe time has a beginning, are you not?

 

[George_Washington]

My beliefs on the God issue are that he's an invention of the human instinct, without any connection to outside reality.

I was merely taking your assertion that he's "outside of our time" and drawing the details you omitted.

You are aware that in this Universe time has a beginning, are you not?

I am not sure if it's ever been proven that time began with the big bang or not.

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Well, which is it, geosynchronous orbit, at an altitude of 22,000 miles, or in the stratosphere, at an altitude of 7 miles? And if you're going geosynchronous, my last calc showing an orbital speed of 8 km/s would have to be modified to take care of the full energy balance. You have to add enormous amounts of potential energy to get to GEO from LEO. So you still have radiant steam, not rain, in your deluge, and the wood boat still doesn't cut it.

I can see that the course took in orbital mechanics is of the same high quality as your chemistry course.

Got any idea of how dense the air is at GEO?

one, if the world was created, and the canopy with it, in such a way that life was viable, then the canopy would be moving in synchronous rate with the air under and directly above it.
two, the radiant steam would travel up, slow down even more, cool down, and fall in an elongated amount of time, which Creationist physicists such as Jay L Wile have calculated to be the same as the Bible states, 40 days and 40 nights. the Joules of this down pour would be the same, but that is only one aspect of the physics of this. if you mow a lawn in 20 minutes, you release the same amount of work that you would if you mowed the same lawn in 40 minutes or 50 minutes, etc. the only difference is the rate that the work is released. over forty days and forty nights, the downpour would not be enough for the ark (which was probably larger than 6 of the largest ships in the United States Military) to fall apart under.

I haven't stated any ideas for the primordial atmosphere.

but you agree with what today's scientists say, and they say what I have already stated about the atmosphere, and you have already stated the same thing yourself.
figuring what you figure about the weather patterns that would exist, there would be lightning. running lightning through the current model of the early atmosphere creates cyanide and formaldehyde, two caustic chemicals that would do more to end life than to help begin it.

At a guess, it doesn't matter what the original atmosphere was. The Mars-sized proto-planet that smacked the earth and created the moon both destroyed that atmosphere and heated the surface rocks to a molten state, destroying any potential initial life.

and an explosion eats oxygen up, just like fire, and turns it into carbon dioxide. add in the fact that such a large planet hitting the earth would definitely leave a mark, or else you have to assume that this planet was at least as large as the sun, if not larger. to keep orbit, a planet of that size would have to be out past pluto, making life, again, unsustainable. next, you have to understand that the speed this protoplanet was traveling at would have to directed in such a way that it would hit at a time when all the other planets are on the other side of the sun, and in a direction that would make it merge PERFECTLY with the current orbit, AND carry the moon in its wake. your theory contains so many statistical and scientific impossibilities that the world should not be here. with that model, the earth, instead of going into orbit, would fly directly into the sun, causing a supernova of gigantic proportions that would destroy the universe we have.

The atmosphere after the whack was almost certainly outgassed CO2, N2, and H20.

and running lightning through that just heats those particles to the point that the CO2 and H2O would react to create methane and oxygen in equal proportions, this would make methane, instead of being a minority, being one of the most prevalent gasses on earth. last I checked, methane was bad for any life.

 

[dthmstr254]

I am not sure if it's ever been proven that time began with the big bang or not.

in fact, the big bang breaks all the laws of momentum and energy conservation.

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

and an explosion eats oxygen up, just like fire, and turns it into carbon dioxide. add in the fact that such a large planet hitting the earth would definitely leave a mark, or else you have to assume that this planet was at least as large as the sun, if not larger. to keep orbit, a planet of that size would have to be out past pluto, making life, again, unsustainable. next, you have to understand that the speed this protoplanet was traveling at would have to directed in such a way that it would hit at a time when all the other planets are on the other side of the sun, and in a direction that would make it merge PERFECTLY with the current orbit, AND carry the moon in its wake. your theory contains so many statistical and scientific impossibilities that the world should not be here. with that model, the earth, instead of going into orbit, would fly directly into the sun, causing a supernova of gigantic proportions that would destroy the universe we have.

I swear....you are quite possibly, either the most rediculously uninformed person I have ever heard, or a comic genius of incredible skill. I was going to go into the errors in your entire post....hell, I even considered just doing all of this thread....but after reading your replys to the attmpts to other members....I see no point. So instead, I will simply kill the above to an extent:


the Earth slamming into the sun would have little effect, the sun having thousands of times the mass of the earth. The Universe would be uneffected by a supernova of the sun, heh...." Gigantic" or not.
The supposed impact of Theda...the rougue planet that "Created" the moon happened long before the planets stabalized into the orbits we see now....oh....wait...I forgot, the earth is only 4000 yrs old...shoot, there go my theories.

Damn...I'm half drunk and I just realized my six year old knows more of this than you do.....heh.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

[qute]in fact, the big bang breaks all the laws of momentum and energy conservation.[/quote]

Really? I guess you should write up a journal article and submit it before peer-review, since you seem to know more than the majority of academic astrophysicists who think the opposite. Go ahead son; you might win an award for you genius.

HOwever, untill you do, provide credible scientific sources that concur with your miraculous discovery.

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

[qute]in fact, the big bang breaks all the laws of momentum and energy conservation.

Really? I guess you should write up a journal article and submit it before peer-review, since you seem to know more than the majority of academic astrophysicists who think the opposite. Go ahead son; you might win an award for you genius.

HOwever, untill you do, provide credible scientific sources that concur with your miraculous discovery.[/QUOTE]
well, unless there is new science that disproved the laws of momentum conservation when it comes to rotation, then the big bang does break them. if a mass of rapidly rotating particles breaks apart, which is what the big bang says, then the particles will continue traveling in the same direction that they were traveling in at the time it broke apart, that is assuming that nothing acted on the particles from the outside. the problem is that all the spacial bodies are moving in random directions all over the place. galaxies are moving in directions opposite of eachother. the direction of all the spatial bodies is way to random to be the result of the big bang.

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Damn...I'm half drunk and I just realized my six year old knows more of this than you do.....heh.

well, maybe you should sober up before posting again. maybe you will make more sense.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

well, unless there is new science that disproved the laws of momentum conservation when it comes to rotation, then the big bang does break them. if a mass of rapidly rotating particles breaks apart, which is what the big bang says, then the particles will continue traveling in the same direction that they were traveling in at the time it broke apart, that is assuming that nothing acted on the particles from the outside. the problem is that all the spacial bodies are moving in random directions all over the place. galaxies are moving in directions opposite of eachother. the direction of all the spatial bodies is way to random to be the result of the big bang.

You made a claim. Prove it. Show sources as well as academic journals that agree with you and make that argument. That's not even an issue among astrophysicists. You're just bleating.

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

You made a claim. Prove it. Show sources as well as academic journals that agree with you and make that argument. That's not even an issue among astrophysicists. You're just bleating.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.

more sites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Features.2C_issues_and_problems
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt
need more, there are over 1000000 of them.
and for an academic source: all of the Jay L Wile science textbooks.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Hmmm. Few if any credible science sources, nice. One's a creationist science source, the other is wikipedia, and the other is some Dr. from a chrisitan science group who claims that he doesn't want to publish in peer reviewed journals (the standard) because the "science world" is against free thought. Nope. Not biased there. Not retarded ONE bit. *sarcasm*


Oh nice. As I thought. A "creation science" textbook you try to cite as well. I might as well go and cite huckelberry finn.

How bout a real textbook? How bout something from a credible academy of science? How about something from a peer-reviewed journal? I didn't think so.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I'm a late comer to this thread. Here is my answer to the starting premise.

I am an atheist of the tacit (negative) variety. I have no problem with god. I have no problem with Santa Claus. I have no problem with Martians. I have no problem with Munchkins. I simply see no evidence any of the above actually exist. It is impossible to have a problem with or to hate something you have no belief in. I am constantly being told that I hate god. You cannot hate what you do not believe exists.

Now I do indeed have many problems with religion. You are free to believe in 1, 5, 72 or no gods as far as I care. You and your family can eat strange food on set days, rub smelly oils on your body parts, or do whatever it is you feel the need to do. Where my problem comes in is when you try and use the government, force of numbers, or violence to make me and mine do the very same thing.

My ancestors came to North America after violent predators called Roman Catholics for the third time tried killing all of them. The couple of my ancestors who made it here represented the last remnants of a once large family. It seemed they did not pray in the right way so they all had to die, men, women and children in the name of that kind and loving Christian god. Once here our family swore that it would never again go meekly to the slaughter. Since then we have all made sure we are armed and versed in the use of those arms. Since our Constitutional government began here we have placed a premium on keeping an eagle eye on the religious intrusions into government. I will continue as long as I live. Of course with the Christian Fascisti now controlling the dominant political party in our nation that might not be very long.

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Hmmm. Few if any credible science sources, nice. One's a creationist science source, the other is wikipedia, and the other is some Dr. from a chrisitan science group who claims that he doesn't want to publish in peer reviewed journals (the standard) because the "science world" is against free thought. Nope. Not biased there. Not retarded ONE bit. *sarcasm*


Oh nice. As I thought. A "creation science" textbook you try to cite as well. I might as well go and cite huckelberry finn.

How bout a real textbook? How bout something from a credible academy of science? How about something from a peer-reviewed journal? I didn't think so.

yeah... I want to cite an "evolution is true! creationism is false!!!" textbook. :roll: what freaking good is that going to do me?!?!? Dr Jay L Wile uses hard science that supports Creationism.
Wikipedia is the most used online encyclopedia. I doubt it has much unusable information.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

yeah... I want to cite an "evolution is true! creationism is false!!!" textbook. :roll: what freaking good is that going to do me?!?!? Dr Jay L Wile uses hard science that supports Creationism.
Wikipedia is the most used online encyclopedia. I doubt it has much unusable information.

1. Wikipedia is like quoting the great yellow sticky-pad of knowledge. Anyone can go on there, edit something, and then post it. Wikipedia is not accurate as an acadmic source.

2. Yes. You should cite a peer-reviewed, scientific journal or at least a reputable establishment of science, not some creationist institution. They all use the same pre-packaged canned-ham arguments, and few can debunk them unless they are expert scientists, because they are so shrouded in lies that even I cannot pick them all out. Credible science organizations provide a reasonable level of trust--a man claiming that God is the guiding hand of science and that he won't publish in peer-journals because "scientists are part of a big anti-him conspiracy club" do not make for legitimate sources.

Creation science is automatically, by default, not real science. It's theories are not real theories, since all theories of science MUST have a natural mechanism. He posits "god-did-it" which is supernatural, not natural. Ergo, it's not science.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

well, unless there is new science that disproved the laws of momentum conservation when it comes to rotation, then the big bang does break them.

Oh, has someone proved that this universe is rotating? Cite references, please. If they have not, then the total angular moment (that's what physicists call "momentum conservations when it comes to rotation), is zero.

if a mass of rapidly rotating particles breaks apart, which is what the big bang says,

No, it's not what classical Big Bang theory says.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

yeah... I want to cite an "evolution is true! creationism is false!!!" textbook. :roll: what freaking good is that going to do me?!?!? Dr Jay L Wile uses hard science that supports Creationism.
Wikipedia is the most used online encyclopedia. I doubt it has much unusable information.

Dr Jay uses hard science that supports creationism, does he?

I searched diligently and managed to find all the science that supports creationism, and I quote it below:

.

That's a pretty impressive list, isn't it?

 

[xuiq]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

I am independant radical thinker...

I am no athiest, agnostic, or religious person none of the above. Just independant, by myself.

I think you shouldn't think atheism as no religion, and denying of supreme being..

Think of Atheism as different form of religion just exactly opposite of religion beliefs. They deny in the same manner as religious people accept the Supreme being(GOD).

If the word GOD affect atheist people and strike deep fear and confusion and anger and uncomfortability. Consider them deeply religious, just in the name of Atheism. It's a different form of religion and a religion of denying, rather than acceptance.

Believe anything you want to believe as long as you don't force other to believe what you want them to believe. PERIOD:2razz:

Personally for me it's amusing and both old, it's just a mythology in modern day. Just like Greek, Norse, Hindu, Christian, etc Mythologies. These mythology not only a primitive act explaining our world but act as our bais and foundation for moral sociaty code. This morality didn't come from religion itself but from people.

How do you round up people and control them and make them hopeful, or happy. Most people would be more than happy indulge themself in mythology.
Which in sense creates religion as a sense of moral or spiritial path code.

We all can see the trend people are become less religious as more understanding and advanced we get.

It would be ridiculous to say that Supreme Being sits on clouds and watch over us. Back then even a 100 years ago that would of made more sense.

Religion no matter what kind it is stagnates and hinders person ability to see beyond what he really believes and what been told to believe.

If you find the answers that there is no GOD then you will be blind to it that truth because its what you don't to believe and vice versa.

I think that being said, we will see a trend of more and less people becoming religious but on the whole less as we go more understanding about our universe.

 

[xuiq]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

What I believe in?

I believe in myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Dr Jay uses hard science that supports creationism, does he?

I searched diligently and managed to find all the science that supports creationism, and I quote it below:



That's a pretty impressive list, isn't it?

and what books are you quoting from? here are some of his credentials for science and teaching:
Dr. Jay L. Wile holds an earned Ph.D. from the University of Rochester in nuclear chemistry and a B.S. in chemistry from the same institution. He has won several awards for excellence in teaching and has presented numerous lectures on the topics of Nuclear Chemistry, Christian Apologetics, Homeschooling, and Creation vs. Evolution. In addition, he has published 30 articles on these subjects in nationally-recognized journals.

His teaching credentials include: The University of Rochester, Indiana University, Ball State University, and The Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and Humanities (a high school for gifted and talented students).


and here are some links to excerpts from his books:
general science:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=236401&event=1016APSBF|287399|60624#curr
reviews from parents of the children:
Ginger Reed from Fultondale, AL ( Reviewed on April 11, 2003 )
Product Rating: 5 out of 5
Comments: "My 7th grader absolutely loved this curriculum. We used the tests and experiments. The book is not dry reading like most textbooks. It reads like a good book and holds the student's attention well. My son was always coming up to me to discuss what he had read in the book."

Renee Ruby from Sylvester, GA ( Reviewed on May 24, 2001 )
Product Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Comments: "This is a great 7/8th grade science text! Dr Wile writes in such a way that is easily understndable and very interesting. It holds the attention of my ADHD son. The tests were a bit too complicated for us but I supplemented them with oral testing. He does suggest the student be taking or have had pre-algebra with this, but we did not have a problem in not having it yet."
chemistry:
The award-winning chemistry course that took the homeschool community by storm is now even better! Featuring Dr. Wile's easy-to-understand explanations---revised for extra clarity---this Christ-centered modular course offers a rigorous foundation in high-school/college-prep chemistry. The colorful, user-friendly text is designed specifically for home learners and employs experiments using only readily available chemicals and equipment. Completion of Algebra 1 is a prerequisite. Includes a 272-page test/solutions book. 603 pages, hardcover.
biology:
Designed as the first high school-level science study a homeschooler takes, this new edition of Dr. Wile's biology curriculum includes more color illustrations; clarified explanations; easier experiments; and a website with links to extra helps. Sixteen modules cover cell life, genetics, creation science as an alternative to evolution, ecology, insects, plants, reptiles, mammals, and more. Includes a 200-page test/solutions book. 594 pages, hardcover.
physics:
Looking for a homeschool science curriculum that can be easily understood? Here it is! Designed as a precursor to high school biology, this course discusses topics like the atmosphere, weather, Earth's structure, the physics of motion, and the environmentalist movement. Grades 7 to 9. Hardcover student book features questions and answers, lab exercises using household items, and study guides. Includes a 113-page softcover test/solutions book. 445 pages, hardcover.

review:
Corri OLeary from Naples, FL ( Reviewed on August 01, 2004 )
Product Rating: 5 out of 5
Comments: "I have homeschooled now for 10 years and I am very pleased with this science book. All the experiment supplies were easy to get, and proved the point. The historical info on the scientist is comprehensive enough for my 16yr old and clear enough for my 10yr old. Science was a joy this last year. They remembered well into the year the information, the experiments and the reason behind them."

there are other teachers featured on the back of each book who are highly qualified in the science fields and hold these books in high esteem. the argument from entropy, which has yet to be debunked, is detailed in the physics book in great detail.

 

[dthmstr254]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

1. Wikipedia is like quoting the great yellow sticky-pad of knowledge. Anyone can go on there, edit something, and then post it. Wikipedia is not accurate as an acadmic source.

well, to establish the fact that I did not edit the source, here is the google cache of it: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_a4LbLuFrIAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang+big+bang&hl=en

2. Yes. You should cite a peer-reviewed, scientific journal or at least a reputable establishment of science, not some creationist institution.

the problem is, none of your ideas of accepted scientific creationist institutions ever have existed. your idea that there is a such thing is laughable. give it up. you have such an extreme bias against creationism that no matter what I post against evolutionism, you will either ignore it or ask me for a "reputable establishment of science" that supports creationism. "earth paging technocratic utilitarian, we can see through your puny attempts at cornering us, and they are not working. you may come down now"

They all use the same pre-packaged canned-ham arguments, and few can debunk them unless they are expert scientists, because they are so shrouded in lies that even I cannot pick them all out. Credible science organizations provide a reasonable level of trust--

and say that evolutionism is the way. which is why they are useless to the creationism argument. you build strawman upon strawman and say its solid as stone. taking a quote from the Bible here:
Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their "stone" wall

a man claiming that God is the guiding hand of science and that he won't publish in peer-journals because "scientists are part of a big anti-him conspiracy club" do not make for legitimate sources.

well, with all the truth in his statements, why the heck should he. I wouldnt trust an evolutionist to print my creationist arguments, just as you probably would allow a creationist to print your evolutionist arguments. this is probably wise of him, because an evolutionist would tweek his arguments until they made no sense. it would be to no avail to him to post on an evolutionist site.

Creation science is automatically, by default, not real science. It's theories are not real theories, since all theories of science MUST have a natural mechanism. He posits "god-did-it" which is supernatural, not natural. Ergo, it's not science.

taking the same thoughts here, you can say the same of evolution. nobody can go back in time and see it happening, and neither can they come up with an experiment to prove macro-evolution. hence, it is not science, because there is no experimental evidence for it. since macro-evolution is the "natural mechanism" that evolution is based on, and is not proven to actually occur by any documented experiments, then it cannot be considered a natural mechanism. erego, you have strawman built on strawman.