Replies

> Name calling from either side is not helpful.

It's not? How, then, do we hold a debate if we are not allowed to call things what they are? You've got your naturalists and your supernaturalists in this debate.

> people who believe in God can have well founded reasons to believe - without examining those reasons it makes no sense to dis them

Nobody is dissing those who believe in some god or other. However, it's fully appropiate to dis those who believe that their god created a universe full of fraudulent evidence for the purposes of fooling that gods creations.

(Nobody is dissing those who believe in some god or other. However, it's fully appropiate to dis those who believe that their god created a universe full of fraudulent evidence for the purposes of fooling that gods creations.)

Is that what you AREN'T doing here.

(People can indeed choose to believe in utter superstitious rubbish. And in a way, that's for the best. We need stratification in society. While some will choose to discover facts and will go to the stars, some will choose to disbelieve facts, and will serve a useful role scrubbing toilets and sweeping the streets, and wondering why it is that their prayers aren't curing their diseases.)

And here

(Darwin's discovery of the facts of evolution, however, cannot be destroyed or swept under the rug, no matter how much the supernaturalists might want to.)

Here again

(Take it up with the superanturalists. They are the true experts at name-calling.)

Here too

(Is there *anything* funnier than a creationist? Well, the geocentrists, probably, but they are pretty rare. Though we do have some here at FR, disturbingly.)

I believe in God. I'm not a YEC. I believe evolution occurs, but, too what extent, I'm yet unsure. I do not dispute any evidence that supports evolution. I do wonder if it is always interpreted correctly. I don't think there is a stitch of fraudulent evidence around. I do believe that life was designed. I don't think it is appropriate to be taught as science under the criteria that defines science. I do think it is appropriate to be taught as philosophy. I also find the assertion that there is no designer, and it all just happened to be another philosophical view. Even though I believe in a designer, I do not advocate stopping research, as it would be most interesting to discover how a designer might have done it. I'm not sure why so many on these threads are terrified of belief in God leading to the "Dark Ages". It seems that many on these threads share my philosophy, and support further research even though they believe life was designed. You are rather belligerent in defending your philosophy. I would encourage you to quite hiding behind science in defense of your belief, and to debate it philosophically, as that is a more appropriate arena