Hi Ambo I see your new to this forum you will so see your on a hiding to nowhere with the GB’s but good luck.
Aslan if I thought you or the other GB’s had the intelligence to understand or the willingness to learn I would. Failing that there are lots of text books on the subject try buying one aimed at 10 years olds and work your way up.
Grey you said "Sir Isaac Newton is generally regarded as the father of modern science and he was most definitely a creationist"
Great scientist that he was no one say's that. The scientific method was developed over thousands of years with many cultures giving it a helping hand. As for Mr Newton he was also a spiritualist do you go in for that stuff too.
Creationist are as creditable as astrologers don’t forget that for biblical creation to be correct all our fields of science would have to be wrong. The bible clearly say’s creation took place over six days six thousands years ago.

THERE IS ONE WAY TO FIND OUT .ASK INSURANCE COMPANIES TO INSURE US AGAINST THE NON EXISTANCE OF G0D.WHAT WOULD THE PREMIUM BE? IF GOD DOES EXIST THEY WIN,AND IF HE DOESN'T EXIST THEY STILL WIN, BECAUSE WE WON'T BE AROUND TO COLLECT.

GEE I THINK I'LL START UP A NEW RELIGION.IT COSTS NOTHING TO PRODUCE,YOU PAY NO TAXES AND NO ONE CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING.TO THINK I'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ALL THESE YEARS TRYING TO PAY FOR MY FAMILY AND RETIREMENT.THE ANSWER HAS BEEN THERE ALL THE TIME.ALL YOU AGNOSTICS AND ATHIESTS HAD BETTER SEE THE LIGHT AND START BELIEVING!!

To Sells sorry for not getting back to I think you may know who this is.

What surprises me somewhat that in such arguments that it is the Christian against the atheist or scientist as if the Christian religion is the ‘true’ religion by default.

What about all the other religious faiths from Animist to Buddhist are they just superstitions?

They cannot all be true, central doctrinal foundations make many religions especially the big three mutually exclusive. So even if there is a ‘true’ faith it means humans are totally capable of making up elaborate theological/social constructs out of creative narrative. If the Christian thinks this of the Hindu why cannot the same be said of you?

No I cannot prove the Christian ‘God’ doesn’t exist but nor can you disprove that invisible pink unicorns didn’t create the universe or any of the Animist creation stories are myth or that the Olympians haven’t just gone on holiday.

But when archeological evidence shows that Jews are just mountain Canaanites, that they were polytheist whose monotheism went through its own evolution rather than the Mosses and the burning bush myth, I would rather tend to think it is like any other religious tradition a human invention that serves human needs.

Let alone the fact the Christian God -especially the Old testament version- is a blood thirsty tyrant who if he where a citizen in our society would be tried as a war criminal and child murderer.

Deuc asks:
"I've being trying to work out why the author's history of science or one guy's conversion could possibly have any relevance to the article's claim. I haven't been able to find any reason, so I can't help but think that Aslan and David are trying to refute the claims using an appeal to popularity/authority by proxy."

Did you read the article Deuc? Warren says natural science confirms and justifies the materialist view of the world. Yet modern science arose only in the western world and only out of the Christian worldview. The founders of modern science were motivated by their theistic beliefs not by any materialistic view, and their discoveries caused them to honour God not reject him.

The significance of Flew's conversion is that it was inspired by modern science! In other words, contrary to what Warren says, modern science convinced him that evolution was impossible.

Do you get it now?

Deuc wrote:
"Aslan, this is a link to a talkorigins article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"

I am aware of the talk.origins archive. Here is the rebuttal to that nonsense:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Deuc wrote:
"Reference to the "first self-reproducing organism" is a red herring, it has nothing to do with the validity of evolution."

Not at all. For evolution to occur, life must exist. If life does not exist then evolution is a non-starter. You can't get out of it that easy. Explain the beginning of life or concede that evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

Deuc wrote:
"That said, the first "life" wouldn't have been an organism at all, not a single cell. Think replicating polymers, formed by chemical reactions, very simple."

Not simple at all. See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

Interesting Aslan you make much of current science convincing Flew to change his position- when by the latest study anyway if you are a scientist you are more likely not to believe in a personal god the do- but then go onto to dismiss mainstream science by touting your creationist non-science nonsense. Sorry you cannot have it both ways.

BTW the rise of the scientific worldview in the Christian west to some extent does come from the Christian view of laws and the law maker- not to mention wanting to work out the date of the Armageddon- but also there are other non-Christian contributors like the pagan ancient Greeks, the Hindu zero, the infidel Muslim that without which in all likelihood medieval western Europe would have continued to be a relatively primitive backwater compared to the rest of the world.

If you have the time also respond to my other post of why we should give the default position to your ‘God’ and not to any other of the other religious conditions?

Several themes have been raised in the comments on my article. Here are replies to three of them:

First: I hope my argument did not rely on reductionism. I see it differently. When oxygen and hydrogen are in the gaseous state their behaviour can be explained by a specific set of laws. When they combine as H2O they become water. The water DEPENDS on H and O but it obeys new laws and its behaviour cannot be EXPLAINED in terms of the laws of its components. In the same way the MIND is a product of, and DEPENDS on, the physics and chemistry of the brain but is not EXPLAINED by them.

Second: Everything in the MIND, all the images and thoughts, is a product of natural BRAIN PROCESSES. The IDEA of supernatural GODS and GHOSTS is also one of the products of the brain. They do not exist as BEINGS outside the BRAIN. There is no supernatural BEING which can exercise a FORCE to deflect the course of a speeding bullet away from the heart in defiance of the physical laws which govern the rest of the world. Despite what the Pope says he believes in his book “Memory and Identity”, his heart was missed because the assassin’s aim was not as accurate as the Pope thinks, not because of Supernatural Intervention.

Third: EVOLUTION is a concept which applies to far more than animals and plants. It simply means regular development and change. Things have a beginning, they grow and develop then die. Astronomers accept the evolution of cosmic bodies. They condense from gas, grow and burn as stars and finally dwindle to such density that they die as supernovae. The elements evolve from the simplest sub-atomic particles. They grow and develop in an ordered sequence as laid out in Mendeleev’s atomic table. If “Aslan” wants evidence of evolution he/she should look in the mirror. The beginning was just two little cells, they grew and developed into a very complex individual and will, unfortunately, die. In other words Aslan evolved.

John Warren