Belief in Evolution as FACT and in Marxism as decent are the new litmus test for tenure in academia.
The elitist left (that claims to be all inclusive) is once again proven to be the exclusive pigs running the farm again!

The biggest hole in the evolutionist thinking is how a pile of dirt and/or mud (with or without amino acids) became a single celled form of life.
I do not advocate the Biblical view of creation — but I am still trying to see how science can disprove the fact that there is a deity who conceived the laws of science and DNA and set them in motion.

It seems to me that as fervent the belief in God the creationist have, it is matched by the fervent belief of most of you in evolution.
Therefore — is evolution your God? I digress……..

Discrimination is NEVER ok …………..except against those who you deem a threat………..ah — what an inclusive society!

300 years from now, we will see atheists fight atheist over who’s science is more ‘blessed’. See episode ‘GO GOD GO’ from http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800/

“We have empirical evidence that the Universe had a beginning. We do not have the same for God.”

Unwarranted assumption in this statement. There is, in fact, no empirical evidence that Gos exists at all. Therefor, any discussion about his origins or lack thereof lack a theoretical base.

Secondly, if we accept for the sake of argument that God exists, it would be possible to assume that God existed forever, but I would not make that assumption for two reasons.

A) Nothing that we have ever studied at any time has existed forever, and we have studied lots of things. God could, of course, be the exception to the rule, but I would not assume it.

B) Long ago, it might have been concluded (by atheists or similar)that the universe had existed forever, because there was no evidence that it had ever not existed. However, this was based on incomplete data and poor equipment. Further study provided evidence of a beginning. Additional experimental testing and observation of God might provide similar evidence.

[[It’s possible to be a good scientist with strong religious beliefs in the same way that it’s possible for a smoker to run a marathon. It just makes it more unlikely.
Religion is magical thinking and only has a deleterious effect on scientists.]]

So, what you’re saying is, Nicholas of Cusa, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Louis Pasteur, were all poor scientists because they were Catholic.

Alfred Russel Wallace and James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin were all poor scientists because they were Anglican.

Michael Faraday was a poor scientist because he was an evangelical.

Theodosius Dobzhansky is a poor scientist because he’s Eastern Orthodox.

Subramanyan Chandrasekhar was a poor scientist because he was Hindu.

On the other hand, Richard Dawkins is a great scientist because he’s an atheist.

Excuse me if I don’t find your theory very convincing.

[[I think it gets a lot more troublesome if you believe that the hypothetical God who lit the fuse for the Big Bang has anything to do with the God of the Bible, or Koran, or Torah. That really is a ridiculous idea.]]

What, precisely, is ridiculous about it?

It is perfectly logical to say that the Universe needs an explanation for its origin and God does not. We have empirical evidence that the Universe had a beginning. We do not have the same for God. Thus we can plausibly say that God was always here, while we cannot plausibly say the same for the Universe.