Biased Interpretation?

1) Other members should not here reply to the content of the proposed topics, linked to in message 45.
2) Soracilla should NOT dodge the request of (1) by posting the content of the proposed topics in this topic. Instead s/he should work with the admins to get the proposed topics into a form suitable for release. Please try to boil the content down into some more concise form, and please try to follow any other admin requests.Adminnemooseus

---

I strongly suggest that if parts of the two unapproved posts you reference are relevant that you use them in this discussion where they can be properly answered.I suggest that your second post is withdrawn until you can properly acquaint yourself with the evidence (quite frankly you don't seem to understand the scientific side at all). Both posts could do with serious improvements to the reasoning. If either gets approved in their current form, expect it to quickly get shredded.

Of course it works. The universe could have been created just this second, made to look 13.7 billion years old, with our memories of having lived for years being part of that creation. You can't use anything in the universe as evidence that this is false, as all the evidence in the universe has been faked.
Works perfectly. Accounts for everything.And adding an intelligence into the mix, giving it the goal of a specific result, and having it act to achieve that goal, always increases the probability of that result occurring.
Take the CT Lotto, for example. On March 8th, the numbers that came up were 17-22-26-35-38-40. The odds of those numbers coming up in any order is 1 in 7.1 million. However, if you add in an intelligence with the goal of having those numbers come up, and it acts to achieve that goal -- rigging the Lotto; that does vastly increase the probability that those numbers will come up.
However, the question is, should you be saying that the Lotto was rigged?

I'm afraid I didn't word the question very well. The main point was what your beliefs were relative to those you were pointing to as experts of some sort.Based on SFS's post it seems that you are making use of sources that do not agree with your beliefs. Perhaps you could clearify that in an ID thread somewhere. Not here!I would say that so far you have contributed nothing to the primary topic of this thread. That is: Take all the facts (or some reasonable subset) and offer a different interpretation to show where the bias of the vast majority of scientists (Christian and otherwise) is hidden. You have not contributed yet because you don't know what the facts are. You have to start there.In addition, you seem to think that anything which you believe is damaging to evolution as a solution leads to a specfific other interpretation. Unfortunately the best you can do down that path is leave no explanation. You would then, if you could get there, have to show why another explanation fits all the facts and how it fits them better than evolutionary theory. You haven't started yet.