randman writes:
, like your previous insistence that acceptance of the Big Bang theory was an atheist plot...
Uh huh,...really? Care to show where I have ever written anything about the Big Bang, much less that it was an atheist plot.
Is this sort of like the Haeckel mentality? Fake the data to make your claim?
Tsk tsk, Rand. How quickly we forget...
And how quickly you mischaracterize even quotes you paste directly above your own paraphrasing.
As you don't read what follows, keep in mind that I specified "acceptance of the Big Bang theory" as something you critiqued as conspiratorial and atheistic, not the theory itself.
In the exchange below, you embrace your usual conspiracy theory of evolutionists as intellectually dishonest folk who intentionally use fraudulent evidence and switch their views on cosmosgyny, and their position on the logical problem of a First Mover, in order to serve their grander alliance of god-scoffing.
I'll stand by my remarks as a fair summary of your position, here and elsewhere, concerning evolutionists, atheists, conspiracies, and the sinister motivations behind changing scientific theories.
Your assertion:randman writes:
What's interesting about this is unbelieving scientists had no problem before the Big Bang to the idea that universe had no beginning, but now people with the same logic claim it is illogical to think of a God that has no beginning.
That, to me, is very telling in terms of the intellectual honesty or lack thereof among the God-scoffers.
My reply:Omnivorous writes:
I can't make heads or tails out of your logic here.
Are you saying that the Big Bang theory caused a flip-flop among steady state theorists who previously had no difficulty with "beginninglessness" but do now? How do you know?
How do you know the positions regarding God and/or beginnings of any of those people, then or now?
Isn't this your logic?:
1. Some scientists, some of whom may have been unbelievers, proposed the universe had no beginning. Their theory failed to gain and hold acceptance in the scientific community.
2. A theory was proposed by scientists, some of whom may have been unbelievers, that there had been (at least) one beginning to the universe, and this theory became generally accepted among many believers and unbelievers alike.
3. Fifty years later, some unbelieving, scientifically minded person posting into this thread finds the notion of a God with no beginning illogical.
Therefore, unbelievers have no intellectual integrity.
Steady state theory attempted to reconcile the General Theory of Relativity with observation. It failed in the face of new observations, and Big Bang theory was widely adopted because it better fit the new observations.
What could be more intellectually honest than that?
How intellectually honest is it to lump together scientists, then and now, whose positions on the question of God and beginnings you simply do not know, so that you can assault the integrity of "God-scoffers"?
Your repetition.randman writes:
It's simple. The scientific community did not scoff at the idea that universe had no beginning, as if it was illogical.
They had no disagreement with it in principle, but just found that the evidence supported the idea the universe had a beginning.
So it's clear that the scientific community and mentality is not that it is illogical to think something could exist without a beginning, unless of course we are talking about God.
If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that's too bad.
My reply:quote:
If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that's too bad.
Oh, I see it alright.
So, once again, you have declared that "god-scoffers" have conspired, across decades--and even generations--using evidential fraud and intellectual dishonesty to further their god-scoffing ends.
Now, as I recall, you expended considerable time and energy defending those "enhanced" dinosaur petroglyph photographs as reasonable and persuasive, not just interesting. Let's go take a look shall we?
See ya later.
™ Version 4.2