Thanks Sancho, you've saved me the effort.

Apologies for my line-by-line rebuttals though. I try do to avoid it, but Dan's posts are so chock-full of errors!

Dan,

<<...[Copernicus] and today’s creationists have a lot more in common than you might suppose.>>

Oh dear! And I just recently debunked this one too. Maybe approaching it from another angle will help, eh?

Let's see..

<<Firstly, both explicitly believed the Biblical scriptures.>>

Yes, only the founders of modern science relied on natural methodology and only succeeded when they didn't rely on their religious beliefs. Creationists today, however, fail constantly because they rely on their religious beliefs.

<<...they were both willing to swim against the stream...>>

Yes.

Copernicus (et al) used 'natural methodology' to swim against the stream of 'religious dogma';

And today's Creationists use 'religious dogma' to swim against the stream of 'natural methodology'.

<<...stick their neck out and risk intense criticism by stating their position ...>>

Yes.

Today's Creationists risk intense criticism from scientists;

And Copernicus (et al) risked death at the hands of religious authority.

Nice attempt to make evolution sound like the new 'religious authority' though. Good example too of the victim status that Creationists like to claim.

<<...and giving clear reasons for that position.>>

Yes.

Copernicus (et al) used testable evidence as their reason;

And today's Creationists use religion.

<<Asking for some sort of balance or right of reply was an exercise in futility.>>

So they asked for a right of reply, yet they very rarely ever submit to peer review? I think you're just making this one up.

So why is it so exceptionally rare that Creationists ever submit to peer review, Dan? Could it be that (deep down), they know they've twisted the facts in order to preach to the already converted?

<<[A balanced and fair discussion on creationism] would have a qualified scientist, who understood and adhered to the creationist viewpoint explaining the evidence from a creationist perspective.>>

Why on Earth would the ABC want to regularly show view points that have been debunked repeatedly?

Now THAT would be an “exercise in futility”.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...there would be room for discussing the evolutionary point of view, as they are competing views.>>

“Competing” is a strong word in this instance. It implies that the study of evolution has “competition”, and considering Creationists are taken at every turn, they hardly qualify as "competition".

<<To arrive at the pictures my son was viewing required much interpretation, philosophically driven guesswork and speculation.>>

Not quite.

Many of the fossils are complete enough for computer modeling to produce an accurate image of what they would have looked like.

What I find amusing though, is that Creationists themselves can't agree on which ones they think are Human and which are Ape. You'd think they'd have put two-and-two together by now! A classic example of how religion can be a hindrance to scientific research.

Oh, and in case you'd forgotten, Dan, there's this thing called “Separation of Church and State”. You know, that thing you forgot to mention when giving the reasons why Intelligent Design advocates don't use the term "God"?

In this case, the Separation of Church and State (which protects many countries from becoming disastrous Theocracies), means that religious mythology cannot establish itself in schools as science. Science must be based on empirical observations and testable hypotheses.

<<Okay, I’ll use terminology reflecting the currently accepted scientific view – ‘The cosmos exploded into existence millions of years ago’>>

Err... That's the same as using the word “sprung”. You're certainly no Stephen Hawking, are you, Dan?

The Big Bang is an expansion, and this is all it has in common with an explosion. And “billions” of years ago – not just “millions”.

Not only do we see a lot of evidence that fits the Big Bang theory, but the theory's predicted a lot of what we see.

I could provide you with a ton of links, but I know they'd be too confrontational for you to click.

Runner! You have been asked this question a thousand times,and with all your 6000 years to think about it, where is your evidence!

P/s. (I have lived with clinical depression all my life, so you mind your dam mouth! I am doing the best I can.)

Where is the god in you now!

EVO

EVO

Where is my evidence? Speak to the thousands of scientist who can plainly see that what we observe on the earth is exactly what is written in Scripture. Proving evolution however ends in a lot of garble with no substance or evidence. I sympathize with your depression although again this proves that evolution is wrong. It is easy to observe that morals, sickness and perversion is increasing and not decreasing (which if there was any credibility to the evolution theory would be happening). The missing link is just that. Multiple frauds have been uncovered and will continue to be produced. The ridiculous notion that we came from apes has led to nothing more than racism and fantasy. A.J Phillips is blinded by his and others dogmas. Evolution is the theory that should be able to produce evidence. In hundreds of years it is still scientifically a fraud. I am thankful that many many scientist are honest enough to admit it.

relda
"Like other educated Jews in his day, Jesus was faithful to the Law of Moses, learned in Jewish scriptures and oral law, steeped in the spirit of the Pharisees, and expectant of the coming of the Messianic Era and called a "rabbi." The Torah of Jesus (Torat Yeshua) is love and, ‘ispo facto’ fulfilled its intent – i.e. love does no wrong to a neighbor and therefore fulfills the law. This is the true ‘community’ of God."

Indeed,

"...which commandment in the law is greatest? He said to him, "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment".

Matthew 22.36-38

Hard to disagree, integrity is indeed a good thing.

"And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22.39-40

To me, the problem for Catholicism and some emerging forms of Evangelical Christianity is their reliance on the "supernatural". The spreading of fear to control people's minds. The teachings of Jesus do no such thing - but he appeared quite partial to a parable or two?

Today we would refer to such things as allegories, metaphors, analogies etc... but certainly not literal truths.

You’re quite right George, there were many aspects to the Spanish Inquisition holding equal, if not, greater dimension than the idea of Catholic reform or conversion. Historians have in fact noted that it reflected the social, political and religious agendas of Spain's rulers and many of her people. As often falsely assumed, there is simply no comparison to be made with the brutality of our modern dictatorships (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al). A primary driving force behind the persecution of, first, the Jews, and, then, the ‘converted’ was envy, greed, and lust for power on the part of, particularly, the rising Spanish urban leadership. This was done in part to wrest power in the cities from both the crown and the church. In a very real sense, therefore, the Spanish Inquisition could not have existed anywhere other than in Spain.

I note also, as shown in part on this forum, where postmodern skepticism is a healthy antidote to the theological nonsense associated with ‘miracles and magic ‘and that in fact, Pascal was dead right, there is more faith in honest doubt than ‘creeds of belief’. Again, and ironically so, clinging to the ‘miraculous’ seems more an act of ‘unfaith’.

The encounters found within Christian exclusivism is good reason why many may take refuge in the Buddha's Dharma – quite the positive atheism.