==================
1. With your change in tactics, we'll assume that you can't come up with any empirical evidence that might prove evolution to be true.
==================

We're talking about big bang theory, not evolution, remember? Your website made erroneous claims about
1) The source of star's light
2) The age of the universe
3) The nature of the biblical god

I'm more than happy to point out errors when I see them, using empirical evidence such as:
1) The detection of solar neutrinos predicted by a thermo-nuclear sun fueled by a hydrogen core
2) The constant speed of light in addition to light and radiation detected from astronomical events more than 6000 light years away.
3) The biblical claims that god is not deceitful and that we can learn about god from his creation. (admittedly, using the bible isn't on the same level but the logical contradiction is pretty obvious).

========================
2. It's fascinating that you guys think that God works within the confines of man's mind. I suggest you look up the word 'supernatural.'
========================

I suggest you look up Romans 1:19-20,
". . .since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made."

If god claims that we can come to understand him through what he has made doesn't that indicate that, in regards to this universe, god is making the claim that he did, in fact, work within the confines of what human beings can understand?


=======================
4. Since you don't feel confident to debate your theory by using actual empirical evidence, you might find this forum more your liking:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science
=======================

I'm going to take a guess that you fellas got destroyed on your last message board and are trying to avoid a repeat by limiting the kinds of arguments that you'll deal with/not delete to an absurd degree. I've presented empirical evidence showing that your claims that,

1) God is the source of light from the sun, moon, and stars
2) God created all the "light" in the universe instantaneously, thus getting around old earth arguments
3) The Genesis account of creation has never been falsified

Are just plain wrong. Your response is to completely gloss over your errors and my questions to try and dismiss it all by labeling it "philosophical". Detecting solar neutrinos predicted by thermonuclear fusion theories about the sun's energy is not philosophical. The detection of supernova and other phenomena more than 6000 light years distant in addition to observations confirming that the speed of light is constant, is not philosophical. Those are statements supported by empirical evidence.

The philosophical part of my posts deals with the nature of your god in light of these observations, but the observations themselves are very well supported and the philosophical implications I draw from them are very direct and, quite frankly, fantastically obvious. Do you have a theory that can account for this evidence by making more verifiable predictions?

In regard to your comment:
"We're talking about big bang theory, not evolution, remember? Your website made erroneous claims about
1) The source of star's light
2) The age of the universe
3) The nature of the biblical god"

Yes, we were debating the big bang theory, not the Genesis account of creation, which your #1-3 refers to. Please note the disclaimer at the bottom of our Genesis Account of Creation page:
"We are not advocating the teaching of the Account of Creation as fact in science education. But, to preserve the integrity of science education, teaching the unscientific Theory of Evolution as a fact serves no one but those who have an agenda to indoctrinate students into their religion of Humanism."
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

Since we are NOT proposing that creation be taught as fact in science education, we have NO burden of proof to substantiate it. You may choose to believe it, or not.

2. In regard to your comment:
"Do you have a theory that can account for this evidence by making more verifiable predictions?"

Since the naturalistic creation of the universe is taught as fact in science education, the burden of proof is on you to provide empirical scientific evidence to substantiate it ... not for us to substantiate creationism.

3. In regard to your comment:
"I suggest you look up Romans 1:19-20,
". . .since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made."
If god claims that we can come to understand him through what he has made doesn't that indicate that, in regards to this universe, god is making the claim that he did, in fact, work within the confines of what human beings can understand?"

Being as you are such a Biblical scholar, I'm surprised that you didn't know that what is "being understood" refers to understanding "His eternal power and divine nature" by visibly seeing His creation.

How you equate that to, "that he did, in fact, work within the confines of what human beings can understand" is interesting but not surprising when you consider the following verses:

"... because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Romans 1:21-25

I pray that God humbles your heart, opens your eyes, and that you turn towards Him.

=====================
Yes, we were debating the big bang theory, not the Genesis account of creation, which your #1-3 refers to. Please note the disclaimer at the bottom of our Genesis Account of Creation page:
"We are not advocating the teaching of the Account of Creation as fact in science education. But, to preserve the integrity of science education, teaching the unscientific Theory of Evolution as a fact serves no one but those who have an agenda to indoctrinate students into their religion of Humanism."
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
==========================

And, again, we are not talking about evolution. Why, why oh why do you keep trying to bring "evolution" into this? This is cosmology, not biology, there is a difference. And we are not really "debating" anything - YOU posted an article making testable claims, I showed that, when tested, those claims fall apart. Now you are claiming that you can't be held to any kind of standard of accuracy because you don't advocate teaching your beliefs in schools. Well good for you. . .and what does that have to do with anything? Your claims are still wrong and the big bang model of the universe is still the best explanation of observable phenomena that we have.

=====================
Since we are NOT proposing that creation be taught as fact in science education, we have NO burden of proof to substantiate it. You may choose to believe it, or not.
=====================

OK. . .so why do you bother with those ponderously error filled articles on your website trying to support your model?


======================
Since the naturalistic creation of the universe is taught as fact in science education, the burden of proof is on you to provide empirical scientific evidence to substantiate it ... not for us to substantiate creationism.
======================

For one, it's not taught as fact - it's taught as the leading theory because it does the best job of explaining the largest number of observable phenomena. That is our standard for a "good" theory. If you have a problem with that kind of standard then try coming up with a theory that does a better job explaining observation.

=======================
Being as you are such a Biblical scholar, I'm surprised that you didn't know that what is "being understood" refers to understanding "His eternal power and divine nature" by visibly seeing His creation.

How you equate that to, "that he did, in fact, work within the confines of what human beings can understand" is interesting but not surprising when you consider the following verses:

"... because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Romans 1:21-25
========================

Yes and? None of my implied sinfulness for not adhering to you views does anything to change the fundamental principle that the bible claims that god specifically and intentionally created the universe in such a way that human minds could understand him (god) better by seeing (observing) "what he had made". If god didn't work within the confines of what human beings could understand then how are human beings supposed to understand him by looking at his work? You are advocating a direct theological paradox, I suggest trying again.

=================
I pray that God humbles your heart, opens your eyes, and that you turn towards Him.
=================

The authenticity of your concern is somewhat tempered by my ongoing "blocked" status.

Since you have a desire to post under your original IP, I have taken off that block.

Keep in mind that this forum is called the "Let's See How Evolution Works" game and forum. If you want to play, please submit empirical evidence that might prove compelling and we'll start a game.

Otherwise, I will delete you again ... and again ... and again.

NOTE that this is MUCH better treatment than I get when posting on evolutionary blogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/08/idiots_and_ervs.php

After not being able to counter my referenced research papers, the 'host' corrupted my posts (6,40, & 47) and then others got on the band wagon and made it personal, obscene, and a very interesting example of how confident evolutionists are in the 'science' of evolution.

You didn't happen to be one of these, did you?

---
After not being able to counter my referenced research papers, the 'host' corrupted my posts (6,40, & 47) and then others got on the band wagon and made it personal, obscene, and a very interesting example of how confident evolutionists are in the 'science' of evolution.
---

Hmmm... let's read MY story, shall we?

After not being able to answer my questions regarding the nature of science, the 'host' deleted my posts and blocked all IP addresses I had ever posted from. Nobody else got on the bandwagon, she was alone in her fury. It was a very interesting example of how confident whoisyourcreator is in the method of debating.

Pot, meet kettle.

Stop deleting posts and bring on some real answers to my queries.

Main point: if you're looking for empirical evidence of everything, you will be sorely disappointed. Why do you wish to apply the rule of "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that empirical evidence" to every little thing? Can not logical concepts and deduction based in evidence in subjects SURROUNDING the idea be valid? You're asking for physical answers to questions that are beyond physics, by their nature.

I pose the likely question to you: If I don't have empirical evidence of God in your next post, then God is a figment of everyone's imagination. It's a travesty and should not be taught in Sunday schools. It's pure fantasy, corrupting our youth. Either give me true empirical evidence of God or you have shown your colors in your outright lying and making up stories in order to control people and make them feel better about themselves. I will be deleting all your ranting posts from here on out.

Sound familiar?

And Julie, with regards to your posts on erv, you were purely a troll. The people on that forum pointed out your errors, plain and simple. You kept needling them trying to get them to admit to something (very Scientologist of you, by the way), get a howler out of them or something. That's not debate, that's trolling. All of your quotes are mined, and that's simply a fact.

1. We will be including part of your diatribe on our new web page called, 'Why Most Evolutionists Won't Debate Us.' We have enough 'material' from you now and are extremely appreciative for your participation.

2. Due to your utter (and admitted) lack of citing scientific research papers, you will no longer enjoy the benefit of spouting off your nonsense. I suspect that you might call this a 'fury' but, again, I am not the least bit interested in your opinion.

3. Interesting to note that now debating is called "trolling"! Excellent addition to 'quote-mining' and 'strawman' arguments.

4. In regard to your comment:
"All of your quotes are mined, and that's simply a fact."

Yes, we know that you prefer philosophy verses actually debating scientific research and empirical evidence. As said before, please consider this blog as it would be more to your liking:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science