Food for thought

[jordanriver]

ps. There may be a god who can't be tested, but the God of the Bible isn't one of them.

that's only if He likes someone. (if its Bible-God you're referring to)

[Juvenal]

Yet not one of you will likely admit that Creation should be taught alongside evolution in order for our young people to choose for themselves.

A funny thing happened when the Kansas school board considered that option.

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Ramen.

As ever, Jesse

[Juvenal]

that's only if He likes someone. (if its Bible-God you're referring to)

The Bible-God hatesifies me.

[little_monkey]

EXACTAMUNDO!!!
that's what I've said a thousand times.
Only God can prove God.

...but how do know He hasn't?

If he has then where is he?

[jordanriver]

If he has then where is he?

for you?

probably no where.

[oxmixmudd]

I guess you have a point there.

If a scientist tells one lie, then I am under no obligation to believe another word that comes out of his or her mouth.

So, If they lie about evolution being a religion, or they say they have to make stuff up in order to "prove" their theory, and that is also a lie, then I guess I can presume that they are lying every time they open their mouths.

Where in the world does their "truth" kick in, then?

Oh my - try applying that to the Christian faith and preachers! Yikes!

You are being simply irrational Mossy.

It would be better if you focused less on evolution and more and wrong thinking about evolution and God. There are indeed MANY who think that evolution precludes belief in the Biblical God. The problem is the false connection that evolution -> no God or gods. Fight that rather than the trying to make claims the amount to evolution is ONLY a religion, or has not REAL basis in science - it does. When you couple wrong thinking about the science of evolution with right thinking about God, you undermine that ability of anyone who is clearly informed on the scientific side to believe or trust what YOU have to say about God

- and by a far more (logically) justifiable thought process than the one you use above to justify turning a deaf ear to what science leads us to conclude about the history of life on the Earth.


Jim

[little_monkey]

for you?

probably no where.

It's not a probability then but rather that he is definitely no where. Poor God, he gets slaughtered even by his own followers!

[Jedidiah]

Afraid of a hypothetical? Again.

[Jedidiah]

If one assumes God did not do it, the most plausible explanation for speciation is evolution.

Well, I agree with this part at least.

ps. There may be a god who can't be tested, but the isn't one of them.

Demonstrate for me how you would scientifically test the existence of the God of the Bible. Please. You do understand that the fleece was not a test of the existence of God, do you not? Gideon heard from God and tested the message. Far cry from any scientific test of His existence.

[jordanriver]

It's not a probability then but rather that he is definitely no where.

there is probably no reason for you to come to any other conclusion

Poor God, he gets slaughtered even by his own followers!

???
whats that all about?

[phank]

Oh my - try applying that to the Christian faith and preachers! Yikes!

Jim

Well, that would be hard to do in any reasonably analogous fashion, since incorrect statements scientists might make are necessarily testable. Indeed, such statements become incorrect by failing the tests. Statements that cannot be tested, cannot be either true or false. I'm at a loss to understand how untestable opinions can be "lies". Matters of faith can be accepted or rejected, but they can't be right or wrong.

I would not equate support based on overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, with support based on intractability of belief.

[little_monkey]

there is probably no reason for you to come to any other conclusion



???
whats that all about?

It always amazes me that God, the one who supposedly created billions, billions, billions, billions, billions, billions of billions of galaxies, has to rely on people like you who are just about clueless when it comes to posit a solid argument.

[jordanriver]

It always amazes me that God, the one who supposedly created billions, billions, billions, billions, billions, billions of billions of galaxies, has to rely on people like you who are just about clueless when it comes to posit a solid argument.

what argument did you want?

Was there something I was supposed to 'prove' to you?

[phank]

what argument did you want?

Was there something I was supposed to 'prove' to you?

It would be nice to see a coherent argument about why a presumed god who is presumably guiding the destinies of billions of billions of galaxies, would give a high enough priority to one confused individual at one time one one planet of billions of planets in ONE of the galaxies, whose opinions are irrelevant to that god's activities anyway, should pay the slightest attention. There seems to be a failure to understand SCOPE here.

On the other hand, it's comforting to know that nothing that happens within the scope of our concerns has any USE for any gods. We have no need of that hypothesis.

[jordanriver]

It would be nice to see a coherent argument about why a presumed god who is presumably guiding the destinies of billions of .........................
.

"coherent"

.....pfft......

and who decides if the argument is "coherent"

what you going to do? slip away from THE PLAINTIFF'S TABLE, put on a disguise and squeeze into the jury box and announce to the jurors, "say, fellow jurors, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think we're ready to vote, and based on my impartiality ...
I believe we should all vote that we have not heard a very 'coherent' argument today!"