Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
And also untestable.

Just as untestable as atheist assumptions and theories.

They do not have workable theories (actually a good number of them do) which can be tested for evidence of their validity, (yet) nor any way that they can be falsified (oh lots of things can be falsified). And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. That was an assumption only made by some. not all Christians...not too mention all the other theists your leaving out of the equation in your crsade against the chirstians...and there is nothing wrong with them believing it if they wish.The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science. Apparently you havnt been keeping up with the ID theories.


The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans. Again your deliberatly trying to paint things differently...most creationsist theories say that the creator made the laws of physics to begin with...made in fact everything, so in essence science is only showing us how it was maby made and how what was made works.


Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant. Only they are not all nessesarally "inane". At least not any more or less inane than the theory of atheism.


No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how. Ive allready covered the field of noetics a long time ago in a thread far far away...additonally, since I believe that the laws of physics are part of creation, the thing is tested every day, but thats not what you said...you said outside of science...where as I say what science cant prove today doesnt mean it may not be able to prove tomarrow.


I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? Well now perhaps we are finally getting somewhere...you see, every single class Ive taken on a religion, or philosophy (even the ones held by thesists) have done that very thing. So why shouldnt science do it as well.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief! So atheism is equally out then...since it has zero evidence to support its claims?

The theory of atheism is just as much a philosophical claim as any other. Not a scientific hypotheisis. So science by your line of thought as no place whatsoever in any discussion about it...so why keep bringing it up?




Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

Points to the clouds above those flames and then down to my virginia...oh darling...why not both?