[Dimensio]

I said that that the bigbang evolution theories and models are atheistic.

And they are, but only in as much as all science is "atheistic" by not invoking deities.

Now, some people argue that evolution and the Big Bang theories are "atheistic" in that they deny the existence of deities. The theories make no such denial, however, so that charge is without merit.

So either you were trivially correct or you were flat-out wrong. Which is it?

Not that science is atheistic.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is true.

The methodology of science can be used whether the initial hypotheses is theistic or atheistic.

Nope. If your initial assumptions involve the supernatural, then you cannot apply the scientific method and expect meaningful results.

My message was that the only thing more absurd than the divine biblical intelligence models and theories are the atheistic models and theories for creation and evolution.

And you failed to demonstrate any such "absurdity". However, assuming that your claim is correct (even though you've not bothered to do anything to support its validity), I take it that you reject both the theory of evolution and Biblical creationism in favour of some other, less "absurd" explanation? Say the Hindu creation story, perhaps?

[grey_whiskers]

Nope. If your initial assumptions involve the supernatural, then you cannot apply the scientific method and expect meaningful results.

A bit of an overstatement. It depends on how much you *expect* supernatural forces to interact with your system, or the experiment, vs. how much they actually DO interfere in practice.

And finding out how much they DO interfere is just the problem!

One of the essential difficulties is some of the philisophical underpinnings of secular theory--
the ever-popular "uniformity of causes in a closed system" assumption.

God and/or the supernatural introduce two problems into the framework:

1) With the supernatural, there is no longer a closed system
2) With God, there is no "uniformity of causes" and so the tests which work so well via Occam's razor to simplify models doesn't work.

But since Occam's razor in general works so well within the material world, it is tempting to throw out all accounts of God and/or the miraculous as though they are merely manifestations of regular, material phenomena...and all attempts by religious devotees to correct this impression come off as mere "special pleading". Hence accounts of God actually acting in a discernible way within the universe are dismissed in two ways:

1) explained away (regular phenomena are due to "laws of nature"--so God is a superfluous construct best pared away)

OR

2) denied by ECREE (irregular phenomena, a.k.a. "miracles", don't happen, due to the "laws of nature") --they are fallacious, rumors, myths, or chicanery

In other words, materialism insists on explaining/judging EVERYTHING by naturalistic means alone. When God comes up, materialism tries to measure or account for God by materialistic means alone; and, not surprisingly, fails. It then uses the failure as proof that God doesn't exist, never suspecting that the failure in this case is due to an incongruence between its means and its object. And the problem is that materialism alone does such a good job within the material world, or those parts of it God usually leaves alone, that it is easy to assume God is not out there at all.

Much as any other approximation, e.g. reduction of relativistic mechanics to Newtonian at the speeds of ordinary automobiles, the accuracy of your model depends upon how pronounced the effect is that you are neglecting at the moment...

Even though drivers claim "their life flashed before there eyes" this is not necessarily the same thing as time slowing down as velocity --> c. :-)

[chariotdriver]

I should have phrased my original statement better but in your case I'm not sure how much difference that would have made. Actually I don't reject both evolution and Biblical creationism like you think.

Your all over the place with a lot of things. Your writings reveal a lot of assumptions about me and presuppositions for you.

I am not a religious person. I don't think the Hindu description any more absurd than the Buddhist or Biblical. and I have read them all.

I'll just leave it at this. Whether Chariot chooses too or fails to convince-demonstrate anything to Dimensio is only a reflection of Chariots choices or abilities.

Now my original statement still stands (rephrased) and that is that the only thing more absurd than the idea that all of the universe and infinity life, and how man got here, what he is about etc with GOD, Is the idea that it all happened and is there without GOD.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

[dread78645]

... Now, some people argue that evolution and the Big Bang theories are "atheistic" in that they deny the existence of deities. ...

Which would be incorrect.

Evolution will occur with or without a god. In that sense it's agnostic.

The Cosmic Egg (big-bang) theory, on the other hand, was proposed by a Jesuit priest, Georges Lemaître, to counter the prevailing belief of a steady-state universe.
A universe with a beginning (and presumably an end) was welcomed by many religious groups that felt that a eternal, infinite, always-was and always-will-be universe left no room for God.

It wasn't until 1948 when the work of Alpher, Gamow, and Herman showed that a god is irrelevant to making a such a universe. So the "big-bang" universe is also agnostic.