Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

@kellyjay said
Nothing new here moving on.

You haven't offered a definition of "prejudice" that makes sense in the context you used it.

@kellyjay said
At some point you may look at what you asked for instead of hiding from them.

I am familiar with the pseudoscience propagated by evangelical Christians. I am not hiding from it. Others may want to rake through the perennial positions taken by pseudoscience and real science; not me. You can go through all that with people who have a whole forum for it if you want. I was simply curious as to why your "faith" needs to bend science and put it in a box intended, by you, for supernatural explanations.

@fmf said
You haven't offered a definition of "prejudice" that makes sense in the context you used it.

I don't have to even read what you write and pass judgment according to your
rules of discussion, for that matter I can even ask your opinion and ignore you and
pass judgment according to how you do things. You are acting as if a conversation
should be both people actually paying attention to what they other says, that
sounds good, but I have not seen that in practice from you yet. Maybe you should
go to another board and tell them what you think "prejudice" means and I will
look at what they say about your thoughts!

@fmf said
I am familiar with the pseudoscience propagated by evangelical Christians. I am not hiding from it. Others may want to rake through the perennial positions taken by pseudoscience and real science; not me. You can go through all that with people who have a whole forum for it if you want. I was simply curious as to why your "faith" needs to bend science and put it in a box intended, by you, for supernatural explanations.

You realize don't you that everyone who is a Christian isn't a clone, there isn't a
group think mentality. Your bias is showing.

@kellyjay said
At some point you may look at what you asked for instead of hiding from them.

More to the point, why are you hiding Stephen C, Meyer here and not offering him and his ideas to people who enjoy debating such things on the Science Forum?

@fmf said
More to the point, why are you hiding Stephen C, Meyer here and not offering him and his ideas to people who enjoy debating such things on the Science Forum?

You asked for reason, his argument was well expressed. You have reasons for you
world view, or you void of reason?

@kellyjay said
You realize don't you that everyone who is a Christian isn't a clone, there isn't a
group think mentality. Your bias is showing.

Where have I claimed that 'everyone who is a Christian is a clone'?

@kellyjay said
You asked for reason, his argument was well expressed. You have reasons for you
world view, or you void of reason?

You think not being interested in debating some specific video clip you just so happen to like means I am "void of reason"?

@fmf said
Where have I claimed that 'everyone who is a Christian is a clone'?

"I am familiar with the pseudoscience propagated by evangelical Christians."

Believe it or not even evangelical Christians don't always view things the same way.
Lumping them all into a group and painting them with this "pseudoscience" does
everyone including you a disservice. Moreover it isn't Christian views that were
discussed, it was what can be seen in the real world, and possible explanations
given for these things, then comparing them to what we know now, not what we
may know in the future.

These were done for comparison not with scripture but with competing views!
Which are the best with the truth we currently understand. You would have known
that had you bothered to watch them.

@kellyjay said
Believe it or not even evangelical Christians don't always view things the same way.

I didn't say they did.

@kellyjay said
Lumping them all into a group and painting them with this "pseudoscience" does
everyone including you a disservice.

"Intelligent Design", for example, is pseudoscience. It is doing no one a disservice to say so.

@kellyjay said
Moreover it isn't Christian views that were
discussed, it was what can be seen in the real world, and possible explanations
given for these things, then comparing them to what we know now, not what we
may know in the future.

These were done for comparison not with scripture but with competing views!
Which are the best with the truth we currently understand. You would have known
that had you bothered to watch them.

I look forward to the debate about Stephen C. Meyer's ideas on the Science Forum.

@fmf said
"Intelligent Design", for example, is pseudoscience. It is doing no one a disservice to say so.

Actually "intelligent design" is a conclusion, it isn't the science used to get there.

I don't call myself a ID believer, I'm a creationist and I have to acknowledge that.
Your bias is showing again, do you apply the same standard to those that believe
in only a natural world? Motivations are the only reason Atheist accept materialism
is because they are Atheist, not because they are the best explanation for the
reality we find ourselves in? If we declare motivation not science is why people
see and accept the things they do, then we are not looking at science we are
looking at people.

@fmf said
I look forward to the debate about Stephen C. Meyer's ideas on the Science Forum.

Well post it over there, nothing is stopping you.

If you do, you think they will talk about him or the processes he used?

@kellyjay said
Well post it over there, nothing is stopping you.

If you do, you think they will talk about him or the processes he used?

Why don't you find out for yourself?