'>>Now whats the probability of a fundy drawing a valid conclusion which they understand contradicts their cherished beliefs?<<'

The fundy human secularist contradicts themselves almost every time they open their mouths.

Dear runner,

Your response my previous post, above on this thread, designated to your attention and reply, might prove interesting:

Oliver to runner: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 5:42:26 PM

I have only asked you to match the standard of performance of cosmology from Genises or other Biblical source. If you don't regard the confirmation of predicted background radiation, the COBE photograph and Plank time mathematics, as tentative evidence, stronger than Bibical sources, show us Noah's photograph/image and tell us the quantitative morphograhics of Adam and Eve's bodies, please.

I suspect Pericles and our other OLO friends would might think your reply necessarily to balance my posit: After-all this is a Forum for discussion, wherein, some exceptions (George & Philo), religionists take flight when asked for a tight question(s)and an athiest or agnostic does provide the same.

Before condemning cosmology and astrophysics, one should present better tentative falsifiable evidience. Thanks. Please do so.

Poly,

What do you think?

Foxy,

Do you find the COBE photograph substantive?

Regards,

Peter

Dear Robert.(and your chirping parrot Pericles:)...

there is an equal and opposite side to that coin. In the light of

"Science does not know"...how can you refer 'cherished beliefs' to just we fundies...when the only possible conclusion here is that atheists are clinging to beliefs not based on fact? hmmmmmm?

Atheism is based on the unconfirmed belief in something for which there is no answer....... on a simple balance of probablilties, reference to the resurrection of Christ is hardly on the weak side of this argument.

It seems to me that unbelief in God, and the belief in 'science' in the sense that to persue science by default disqualifies any idea of God.. has to be an extremely prejudiced and biased.. some might venture 'bigoted' viewpoint....

I don't really see a conflict between Gen 1:1 and science.

F.H....no mate.. I did not 'prove'...anything. I just showed some astronomical probabilities :)

Hoyle is no dummy nor a fundy.

Oliver

It is difficult to match beliefs scientifically when they are both based on faith. Their are many Astronomers who believe in Creation. They would argue strongly that the bible explains the universe far more logically than your 'big bang theory. Your 300000 year old photo is really a joke isn't it? Again if you are going to be dogmatic about your faith please give a plausible explanation for beginnings. You and Mr Phillips are yet to come near doing that. Many more school text books we have to be revised again (as they have several times) with the latest theory to confirm your faith.

runner,

Thanks.

If by faith you mean (qualified)"reliance or trust ... found on authority" [OED], I do have faith in science, provided apt methodologies are applied, and conclusions are tentatively held and falsifiable. Here, I would enjoin probability to faith, in so much as, I have faith in safe aeroplane or elevator travel, having knowledge that the is a small chance said faith involves risk.

Herein, the faith (as you call it) of scientists is at always at risk; whereas, religious dogma and spiritual beliefs, are typically held as a different form of faith, which to be supernatural.

The COBE photograph is real; of the Universe, 300,000 years after its creation. That which is in the universe is speed governed by c, but not the Universe itself. In effect we look back in time.

Still would like to is a pic. of Noah or the mophometrics of Adam & Eve. As we at OLO now have the COBE pic and are aware of the math of Plank time. Please equal the stakes that science has on the table.

As an aside, why would you believe the Biblical genealogies over the Sumerian accounts written before Genesis?

What do the scriptures forecast about the outcomes in a Particle Super-Collider?

The power of science is with is testing reliability and validity. Revising textbooks to fit new knowledge is good.

Background radiation was predicted and calculated in the 1940s but not confirmed to the 1960s.

O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw&feature=related

There is room for a lot of monkeys.

R0bert