At the risk of being argumentative, I'll restate: You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)
Your response (and link) Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology is simply a straw man and is in truth a non-sequitur.
You responded later: What illusion?
This was perhaps not your claim, but the point has been made on this thread that if one were to accept the idea of a young earth, one would have to conclude that God was tricking us because starlight would have to have been artificially made.
In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be.
Does this include the claim that there is no creator?
If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.
Agreed
Again I'll restate: You (apparently) reject Genesis. Well, I reject blind luck and chance. And again I'll lay claim to the logic of my position, simply because of the truly astronomical odds required that blind luck and chance brought us to this place and time.
Are you aware of an occasion or event where something (matter) came from nothing? If not, your position (imho) is illogical at best and unscientific at worst.
Grace.
Your response (and link) Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology is simply a straw man and is in truth a non-sequitur.
The story of the invisible dragon is meant to illustrate the futility of using non-testable, non-falsifiable evidence in science. You can say that God is the source of all biology...but how does that impact the study of biology? Let's try to nail down the argument. Are you saying that:
A) God has guided evolution over the last 4 billion years to produce the current situation? or that
B) God made the heavens and the earth 6,000 years ago, and virtually all of modern biology, astronomy, geology and physics is mistaken? or
C) Something else entirely?
This was perhaps not your claim, but the point has been made on this thread that if one were to accept the idea of a young earth, one would have to conclude that God was tricking us because starlight would have to have been artificially made.
Since all evidence (not just starlight!) points to a universe billions of years old, one would have to wonder what the point of creating a universe with the illusion of such age would be.
Does this include the claim that there is no creator?
Yes, although I know of no claim in scientific literature that God does not exist, the Big Bang and evolution notwithstanding.
Again I'll restate: You (apparently) reject Genesis.
It depends on your definition of "reject" :-)
I'll be more explicit. If you want to claim that a God (or Gods) is the ultimate cause of the universe, fine. There's no scientific evidence for that one way or the other...it's not even addressed. I do reject that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. The evidence is overwhelming that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Do I believe in Adam & Eve? No. That's mythology, as is a worldwide flood, Noah and the Ark, etc. All evidence points to the evolution of life on Earth over the last 4 billion years.
Well, I reject blind luck and chance. And again I'll lay claim to the logic of my position, simply because of the truly astronomical odds required that blind luck and chance brought us to this place and time.
Evolution doesn't happen by chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance. As for "blind luck", I'm not sure what you're speaking of.
Are you aware of an occasion or event where something (matter) came from nothing? If not, your position (imho) is illogical at best and unscientific at worst.
Science doesn't address the state of the universe before the Big Bang. Where did the universe come from? I don't know.
How is that illogical or unscientific?