Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

First, because I wanted to.

Second, because I made a relevent response to the previous post.

Third, because, while I did the OP, you have taken this thread off topic and I was looking for a way to bring it back.

Fourth, because I can.

1. You responded with meaningless dribble then. We were having a debate, come in and argue for one side, and then say "well I never even thought that in the first place." Whatever dude, be juvenile if you want.

2. Then why did you quote me on my post and continue responding when I had made just as relevant as a response and never failed from doing so? That would be YOU derailing the subject at hand.

3. You clearly stated via PM's that you had no problem where porky was taking the topic. For a while it turned into meaningless gibberish of arguments that were not actually having a debate about religion, which IS what porky was posting about and which you said was ok. Thus I never deviated off-topic. Please show me the post in which I did so, if you can back up your claim.

4. Once again - awesome maturity.

The OP of this thread said in part:

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

You are way off that topic. The op was simply pointing out that a large majority of Americans thought that their religion didn't have a lock on getting eternal life. I started the thread because I say that as an encouraging result and contradictory to the Evangelical ridigity that Bush and his followers have pursued.

Now do you want to get back on topic or do you just want a pissing match to continue?

[CrazyAnglican]

The problem with this reasoning is that nobody is using the Bible to prove anything.

And I didn't say they were at this time (although it is often used). I said that assuming any argument is valid within a persons context, this too would be valid.

I'm not sure I followed you there.

The converse to the faries, Santa Claus, leprechauns argument is where do you stop applying it? It could logically go to the point that no discovery is necessary as their is no reason to believe that their isn't anything we've not seen/touched/ etc. until some little whatsit comes up and jumps in our laps.

And if any of those creatures do jump in my lap, I will believe in them as well. This also goes for the Yeti, Bigfoot, Unicorn and Chupacabra.

Yet, any discovery at all takes the belief that someting else might be out there. To merely say "There's no good reason to believe that" and let it go? There might be any number of creatures we haven't seen yet. That certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't be curious and keep looking. The arguement basically says "Bull, you might as well believe in ......", That's the same thinking that leads to supression of all sorts of really great ideas, sure bad ones too. It's good for supressing ideas. It's not so great for weighing them and establishing their validity.

It's the opposite of the "The Bible says so" argument. It seems designed to shut the opposition down before any real debate can take place.

Well, the entire debate is rooted in stories and superstition that you believe are in fact true. To me it's akin to seriously debating how long Centaurs live or why Werewolves don't just shave. You probably see this comparison as silly, but to me they are the same.

That's sidestepping the issue though. Is it right to ridicule the opposition wihtout listening to their take on things? We'll probably disagree on that one, but it's still the place where the discussion lead.

[FabledIntegral]

First, because I wanted to.

Second, because I made a relevent response to the previous post.

Third, because, while I did the OP, you have taken this thread off topic and I was looking for a way to bring it back.

Fourth, because I can.

1. You responded with meaningless dribble then. We were having a debate, come in and argue for one side, and then say "well I never even thought that in the first place." Whatever dude, be juvenile if you want.

2. Then why did you quote me on my post and continue responding when I had made just as relevant as a response and never failed from doing so? That would be YOU derailing the subject at hand.

3. You clearly stated via PM's that you had no problem where porky was taking the topic. For a while it turned into meaningless gibberish of arguments that were not actually having a debate about religion, which IS what porky was posting about and which you said was ok. Thus I never deviated off-topic. Please show me the post in which I did so, if you can back up your claim.

4. Once again - awesome maturity.

The OP of this thread said in part:

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

You are way off that topic. The op was simply pointing out that a large majority of Americans thought that their religion didn't have a lock on getting eternal life. I started the thread because I say that as an encouraging result and contradictory to the Evangelical ridigity that Bush and his followers have pursued.

Now do you want to get back on topic or do you just want a pissing match to continue?

Let it continue. You told me straight up you didn't care if Porky went off topic. I am posting based off of what Porky posted. No one is trying to relate to the OP anymore, as Porky was discussing that there is no use in logically debating with Christians as they are brainwashed. You, being the original poster and topic started, had no problem with that, so don't come in and try to act like you gave a shit where the topic was going when I AM posting relevant posts. You're using it as an excuse - a cop-out. So please, come up with some mature reasons why you tried to post in the first place about something in which it was - in essence, spam.

[mpjh]

I don't really care if you and porken continue, but I will comment as i see fit, and I will try to take it back to the OP as i see fit. You can ignore that, but lay off accusing me of being off topic.

[porkenbeans]

First, because I wanted to.

Second, because I made a relevent response to the previous post.

Third, because, while I did the OP, you have taken this thread off topic and I was looking for a way to bring it back.

Fourth, because I can.

1. You responded with meaningless dribble then. We were having a debate, come in and argue for one side, and then say "well I never even thought that in the first place." Whatever dude, be juvenile if you want.

2. Then why did you quote me on my post and continue responding when I had made just as relevant as a response and never failed from doing so? That would be YOU derailing the subject at hand.

3. You clearly stated via PM's that you had no problem where porky was taking the topic. For a while it turned into meaningless gibberish of arguments that were not actually having a debate about religion, which IS what porky was posting about and which you said was ok. Thus I never deviated off-topic. Please show me the post in which I did so, if you can back up your claim.

4. Once again - awesome maturity.

The OP of this thread said in part:

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

You are way off that topic. The op was simply pointing out that a large majority of Americans thought that their religion didn't have a lock on getting eternal life. I started the thread because I say that as an encouraging result and contradictory to the Evangelical ridigity that Bush and his followers have pursued.

Now do you want to get back on topic or do you just want a pissing match to continue?

Let it continue. You told me straight up you didn't care if Porky went off topic. I am posting based off of what Porky posted. No one is trying to relate to the OP anymore, as Porky was discussing that there is no use in logically debating with Christians as they are brainwashed. You, being the original poster and topic started, had no problem with that, so don't come in and try to act like you gave a shit where the topic was going when I AM posting relevant posts. You're using it as an excuse - a cop-out. So please, come up with some mature reasons why you tried to post in the first place about something in which it was - in essence, spam.

Just because you cant comprehend, does not make it spam.

[FabledIntegral]

OK...Fixed.

No - I'm saying it's not a valid argument to rely on that alone. And it very well could - it was beyond any comprehension by the people back then how lots of the things work now - what's to say that can't be held with religion as well? I'm merely saying that it's a very valid point saying everything evolved from cavemen, and it would be very arrogant to say that our time era is the era in which we finally know everything. We know more than we used to, that is all.

We also have no proof that the legend of the Loch Ness Monster isn't real. By these rules of engagement, it is perfectly valid to assume that it (she) does. Do you believe there is a chance that Nessy is real? I do not as no modern day, verifiable source has ever seen/heard/touched/smelt/felt it. All the stories are from days past....fables not unlike any of the gods that men claim exist.

Slightly different scenario. The Loch Ness Monster isn't assumed to be a supernatural force. God is. Thus if someone believed that the Loch Ness Monser did have the supernatural power to somehow stay hidden from 99.999% of human society no matter how much detection or effort was used to detect him, would you use the argument "science says that he should be detected if he does exist." Of course not! Because the person is already under the premise that the Loch Ness Monster has supernatural powers that exclude him from the laws of nature. Instead you'd question "why in the world do you believe in this Loch Ness Monster in the first place? What evidence have you gathered to believe this myth to be true? Are your sources credible?"

The entire premise of religion doesn't have to involve proof because of the entire supernatural context which exists outside the realm of the natural. So those arguments don't work. If you want to attack the validity of religion don't attack something within your own context and expect the other side to abandon yours. You're basically saying "the way my belief system works involves proof, and even though yours doesn't NEED proof to be valid according to your context, it thus is invalid." Well by their standards it isn't. Instead, you should question the reasoning for believing it in the first place rather than attack the validity of it and whether or not it makes any sense to pick the particular religion and if the morality of it makes sense, considering that is the basis of religion in general.

Well of course...you are laying down all the ground rules first as to what is valid & invalid. You are basically saying "christians can come up with any proof they want, and you cannot disallow them to use it as proof, because it is their belief within their own context". Their bible comes to mind. Using this logic, it is simple to prove their god exists...because their bible says so. This entire argument begins with the existence of a supernatural realm inhabited by magical spirits which I do not believe exist any more than Santa's Workshop at the North Pole does.

No no no. Asking "why do you think the Bible is the word of God?" and using the response "the Bible says so," is a TERRIBLE answer, and I would agree with you any Christian who relied soley on that answer is quite ignorant, merely because I could go write in a journal "everything said in this is journal is true; killing people for fun is morally permissible by God's standards."

So that's not what I'm trying to say, what I'm trying to say is you can't use what is scientific to attempt to disprove the supernatural.

While Medicine certainly once was once founded in superstition (and perhaps the other to a smaller degree) you have to agree that all but Religion have moved beyond these ancient ways.

....................

Ok. So are you saying that Religion will eventually evolve like the others did to the point that you WILL be able to prove your gods exist ("figure out how it works") and not have to rely on myth, legend & lore?

It very well could be provable. Just as the origin of mankind could some day be provable, despite how many people say otherwise. How many things has mankind invented to allow us to do things that were previously assumed to be impossible? Because it's unthinkable now it's unthinkable forever? Because it's not plausible now it's implausible?

Either way, the answer is irrelevant. The entire argument "everything else has fallen into place except religion, so therefore religion isn't real," is what I get from the post. No - that doesn't disprove it, that's just yet another argument in saying it's not credible. Which is once again people should be questioning "why do you believe this?" rather than try to use their own premises "the world has to follow the laws of nature and anything that doesn't isn't real," when very many people (quite obviously) disagree on such premises. And you HAVE to be arguing on the same premise to have a debate. Otherwise, as I said earlier, you're going to get into a stupid debate, "God can't be real because of these reasons..." vs "God doesn't need any of those reasons to exist because he's..." It's just a circle.

[CrazyAnglican]

Sorry, fastposted by FI

So Porky,


Should I take that as a concession, or will you get around to refuting my last post?

[FabledIntegral]

First, because I wanted to.

Second, because I made a relevent response to the previous post.

Third, because, while I did the OP, you have taken this thread off topic and I was looking for a way to bring it back.

Fourth, because I can.

1. You responded with meaningless dribble then. We were having a debate, come in and argue for one side, and then say "well I never even thought that in the first place." Whatever dude, be juvenile if you want.

2. Then why did you quote me on my post and continue responding when I had made just as relevant as a response and never failed from doing so? That would be YOU derailing the subject at hand.

3. You clearly stated via PM's that you had no problem where porky was taking the topic. For a while it turned into meaningless gibberish of arguments that were not actually having a debate about religion, which IS what porky was posting about and which you said was ok. Thus I never deviated off-topic. Please show me the post in which I did so, if you can back up your claim.

4. Once again - awesome maturity.

The OP of this thread said in part:

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

You are way off that topic. The op was simply pointing out that a large majority of Americans thought that their religion didn't have a lock on getting eternal life. I started the thread because I say that as an encouraging result and contradictory to the Evangelical ridigity that Bush and his followers have pursued.

Now do you want to get back on topic or do you just want a pissing match to continue?

Let it continue. You told me straight up you didn't care if Porky went off topic. I am posting based off of what Porky posted. No one is trying to relate to the OP anymore, as Porky was discussing that there is no use in logically debating with Christians as they are brainwashed. You, being the original poster and topic started, had no problem with that, so don't come in and try to act like you gave a shit where the topic was going when I AM posting relevant posts. You're using it as an excuse - a cop-out. So please, come up with some mature reasons why you tried to post in the first place about something in which it was - in essence, spam.

Just because you cant comprehend, does not make it spam.

So enlighten me on exactly which statement I'm failing to comprehend. I made four clear and concise points. YOU took this thread off topic Porky. mpjh said that was FINE, as you were just frustrated. Thus the topic shifted to what YOUR post was about. And I posted ON TOPIC in relation to what YOUR post was about. Then he comes and nitpicks ME for being off topic when I am ON TOPIC to what is being discussed, but not to the OP? If you can't see the logic in that, just don't post any further on this topic, or instead of being vague, give me a step-by-step reasoning on why my posts were "wayyy" off topic from what was to be expected AS WELL AS why my posts over other people's would be singled out. I need the step-by-step reasoning because I'm apparently unable to comprehend and need your guidance.

[mpjh]

Getting a little sensitive aren't you? Maybe you have reached the end of your run.

[FabledIntegral]

Getting a little sensitive aren't you? Maybe you have reached the end of your run.

I believe that was a way to not answer a single argument - I see why you can relate to porky so well, you do the same thing. Porky knows very well I disagree with his posting manner in nearly every way. His posts are demeaning and don't EVER address what the previous person has said. I'd say 90% of his posts are completely irrelevant to what has been said - and don't even make sense at that if you're following the discussion. He posts arguments that are off topic but apparently, according to you, he's just a frustrated kid who doesn't know how to properly display his points.

That doesn't validate them.

[porkenbeans]

My cat can walk on the keyboard, and make more sense than you.

[porkenbeans]

Getting a little sensitive aren't you? Maybe you have reached the end of your run.

I believe that was a way to not answer a single argument - I see why you can relate to porky so well, you do the same thing. Porky knows very well I disagree with his posting manner in nearly every way. His posts are demeaning and don't EVER address what the previous person has said. I'd say 90% of his posts are completely irrelevant to what has been said - and don't even make sense at that if you're following the discussion. He posts arguments that are off topic but apparently, according to you, he's just a frustrated kid who doesn't know how to properly display his points.

That doesn't validate them.

I have told you before, I am 50 something. You still call me a kid.

[FabledIntegral]

Getting a little sensitive aren't you? Maybe you have reached the end of your run.

I believe that was a way to not answer a single argument - I see why you can relate to porky so well, you do the same thing. Porky knows very well I disagree with his posting manner in nearly every way. His posts are demeaning and don't EVER address what the previous person has said. I'd say 90% of his posts are completely irrelevant to what has been said - and don't even make sense at that if you're following the discussion. He posts arguments that are off topic but apparently, according to you, he's just a frustrated kid who doesn't know how to properly display his points.

That doesn't validate them.

I have told you before, I am 50 something. You still call me a kid.

Check your reading comprehension - I didn't call you a kid.

[porkenbeans]

Getting a little sensitive aren't you? Maybe you have reached the end of your run.

I believe that was a way to not answer a single argument - I see why you can relate to porky so well, you do the same thing. Porky knows very well I disagree with his posting manner in nearly every way. His posts are demeaning and don't EVER address what the previous person has said. I'd say 90% of his posts are completely irrelevant to what has been said - and don't even make sense at that if you're following the discussion. He posts arguments that are off topic but apparently, according to you, he's just a frustrated kid who doesn't know how to properly display his points.

That doesn't validate them.

I have told you before, I am 50 something. You still call me a kid.

Check your reading comprehension - I didn't call you a kid.

I see now. Its just that your writing gives me a headache sometimes. I have to admit that I find myself just skimming most of it because it is so damn terrible. If you were to just leave out half the fluff, I could force my way through it. An imbecile with a thesaurus is really too much for me to bare.

[FabledIntegral]

Getting a little sensitive aren't you? Maybe you have reached the end of your run.

I believe that was a way to not answer a single argument - I see why you can relate to porky so well, you do the same thing. Porky knows very well I disagree with his posting manner in nearly every way. His posts are demeaning and don't EVER address what the previous person has said. I'd say 90% of his posts are completely irrelevant to what has been said - and don't even make sense at that if you're following the discussion. He posts arguments that are off topic but apparently, according to you, he's just a frustrated kid who doesn't know how to properly display his points.

That doesn't validate them.

I have told you before, I am 50 something. You still call me a kid.

Check your reading comprehension - I didn't call you a kid.

On my monitor you did.

Oh really? Care to pull out the sentence where I said that from where you quoted me?

[mpjh]

Look, I tried to give both of you a way to cool it for a bit. Please try that, neither of you is making any sense right now.

[Backglass]

Slightly different scenario. The Loch Ness Monster isn't assumed to be a supernatural force. God is. Thus if someone believed that the Loch Ness Monser did have the supernatural power to somehow stay hidden from 99.999% of human society no matter how much detection or effort was used to detect him, would you use the argument "science says that he should be detected if he does exist." Of course not! Because the person is already under the premise that the Loch Ness Monster has supernatural powers that exclude him from the laws of nature. Instead you'd question "why in the world do you believe in this Loch Ness Monster in the first place? What evidence have you gathered to believe this myth to be true? Are your sources credible?"

How do you know that the Loch Ness Monster isn't a supernatural being with the ability to "stay hidden from 99.999% of human society no matter how much detection or effort was used to detect him"? It is just as plausible to say this, as to attribute such abilities to gods.

No no no. Asking "why do you think the Bible is the word of God?" and using the response "the Bible says so," is a TERRIBLE answer, and I would agree with you any Christian who relied soley on that answer is quite ignorant, merely because I could go write in a journal "everything said in this is journal is true; killing people for fun is morally permissible by God's standards."

Good.

So that's not what I'm trying to say, what I'm trying to say is you can't use what is scientific to attempt to disprove the supernatural.

So do you also believe in healers, psychics, ghosts, communication with the dead and Ouija boards?

It very well could be provable. Just as the origin of mankind could some day be provable, despite how many people say otherwise. How many things has mankind invented to allow us to do things that were previously assumed to be impossible? Because it's unthinkable now it's unthinkable forever? Because it's not plausible now it's implausible? Either way, the answer is irrelevant. The entire argument "everything else has fallen into place except religion, so therefore religion isn't real," is what I get from the post. No - that doesn't disprove it, that's just yet another argument in saying it's not credible. Which is once again people should be questioning "why do you believe this?" rather than try to use their own premises "the world has to follow the laws of nature and anything that doesn't isn't real," when very many people (quite obviously) disagree on such premises. And you HAVE to be arguing on the same premise to have a debate. Otherwise, as I said earlier, you're going to get into a stupid debate, "God can't be real because of these reasons..." vs "God doesn't need any of those reasons to exist because he's..." It's just a circle.

And what I get from you is that ALL mythological creatures may truly exist, as they cannot be undeniably proven false. After all we can't disprove Poseidon, Medusa or The Kraken don't exist somewhere on a supernatural plane, hidden from our eyes. So by your logic there is just a good a chance that they are real, than not.

What about all the other supernatural gods worshiped in the worlds many religions? Do they exist as well? Do you believe Leprechauns exist, seriously? (You know I had to bring it up!)

[FabledIntegral]

Slightly different scenario. The Loch Ness Monster isn't assumed to be a supernatural force. God is. Thus if someone believed that the Loch Ness Monser did have the supernatural power to somehow stay hidden from 99.999% of human society no matter how much detection or effort was used to detect him, would you use the argument "science says that he should be detected if he does exist." Of course not! Because the person is already under the premise that the Loch Ness Monster has supernatural powers that exclude him from the laws of nature. Instead you'd question "why in the world do you believe in this Loch Ness Monster in the first place? What evidence have you gathered to believe this myth to be true? Are your sources credible?"

How do you know that the Loch Ness Monster isn't a supernatural being with the ability to "stay hidden from 99.999% of human society no matter how much detection or effort was used to detect him"? It is just as plausible to say this, as to attribute such abilities to gods.

No no no. Asking "why do you think the Bible is the word of God?" and using the response "the Bible says so," is a TERRIBLE answer, and I would agree with you any Christian who relied soley on that answer is quite ignorant, merely because I could go write in a journal "everything said in this is journal is true; killing people for fun is morally permissible by God's standards."

Good.

So that's not what I'm trying to say, what I'm trying to say is you can't use what is scientific to attempt to disprove the supernatural.

So do you also believe in healers, psychics, ghosts, communication with the dead and Ouija boards?

It very well could be provable. Just as the origin of mankind could some day be provable, despite how many people say otherwise. How many things has mankind invented to allow us to do things that were previously assumed to be impossible? Because it's unthinkable now it's unthinkable forever? Because it's not plausible now it's implausible? Either way, the answer is irrelevant. The entire argument "everything else has fallen into place except religion, so therefore religion isn't real," is what I get from the post. No - that doesn't disprove it, that's just yet another argument in saying it's not credible. Which is once again people should be questioning "why do you believe this?" rather than try to use their own premises "the world has to follow the laws of nature and anything that doesn't isn't real," when very many people (quite obviously) disagree on such premises. And you HAVE to be arguing on the same premise to have a debate. Otherwise, as I said earlier, you're going to get into a stupid debate, "God can't be real because of these reasons..." vs "God doesn't need any of those reasons to exist because he's..." It's just a circle.

And what I get from you is that ALL mythological creatures may truly exist, as they cannot be undeniably proven false. After all we can't disprove Poseidon, Medusa or The Kraken don't exist somewhere on a supernatural plane, hidden from our eyes. So by your logic there is just a good a chance that they are real, than not.

What about all the other supernatural gods worshiped in the worlds many religions? Do they exist as well? Do you believe Leprechauns exist, seriously? (You know I had to bring it up!)

Sure - what I'm saying is that it's a poor argument to use science to invalidate them - not that I believe in them. I'm saying, as I've said numerous times before, the premises have to be the same. How do I know the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist with the 99.999% chance of staying hidden from humans? I have no reason to believe in him in the first place as there are no credible sources, and quite frankly, it sounds like a load of bullshit. Why don't I believe in Christianity? Because I haven't found any credible sources, I personally believe it to be inconsistent (which is nicer terms for calling it bullshit).

So your argument "what would make someone believe in Christianity over Leprachauns?" IS a perfectly valid argument. Using science to disprove the supernatural is not.

[mpjh]

A fairly good argument, but incomplete. Science is best at answering questions in the real world. When Science answers a new question, one for which religion had a contrary answer, then it is possible to bring religious belief into question. We have seen that many times in the past; the flat world, earth center of universe, etc.

So science is an excellent tool for evaluating certain religious beliefs. For example, a modern example is the scientific exploration of why are people altruistic. Religious people says it is and exercise of "free will" choosing good over evil. Science says it could be a genetic coding we humans, and primates, developed throgh evolution that helped us survive as a species.

So I say, science has a definite role to play in addressing religious beliefs.

[CrazyAnglican]

So science is an excellent tool for evaluating certain religious beliefs. For example, a modern example is the scientific exploration of why are people altruistic. Religious people says it is and exercise of "free will" choosing good over evil. Science says it could be a genetic coding we humans, and primates, developed throgh evolution that helped us survive as a species.

So I say, science has a definite role to play in addressing religious beliefs.

And yet, you still shy away from the genetic encoding toward violence/ self preservation. That brings up the question "which is it". Are the religious organizations to be absolved from all past atrocities because the people commiting them were merely fulfilling their genetic destiny? Or are people who perform acts of altruism, just possibly, doing so in part because of the teachings of their religions? You've never addressed that one. It always seems you want to quickly drop the genetic predisposition toward violence (even though you suggested a great use for science would be to explore it), perhaps because it becomes very inconvenient to your supposition.

[FabledIntegral]

I believe that was a way to not answer a single argument - I see why you can relate to porky so well, you do the same thing. Porky knows very well I disagree with his posting manner in nearly every way. His posts are demeaning and don't EVER address what the previous person has said. I'd say 90% of his posts are completely irrelevant to what has been said - and don't even make sense at that if you're following the discussion. He posts arguments that are off topic but apparently, according to you, he's just a frustrated kid who doesn't know how to properly display his points.

That doesn't validate them.

I have told you before, I am 50 something. You still call me a kid.

Check your reading comprehension - I didn't call you a kid.[/quote]I see now. Its just that your writing gives me a headache sometimes. I have to admit that I find myself just skimming most of it because it is so damn terrible. If you were to just leave out half the fluff, I could force my way through it. An imbecile with a thesaurus is really too much for me to bare.[/quote]

Thesaurus? Amusing to see you take the exact same argument used against you a few days back in the GD where someone accused you of using a thesaurus to post "eloquently," whilst you responded taking it as a compliment. I would do the same, if the two most complex words I had used weren't "irrelevant," and "validate," which are both part of a middle school vocabulary. Amusing I wasn't even responding with you yet you made an ass of yourself.


.........................

A fairly good argument, but incomplete. Science is best at answering questions in the real world. When Science answers a new question, one for which religion had a contrary answer, then it is possible to bring religious belief into question. We have seen that many times in the past; the flat world, earth center of universe, etc.

So science is an excellent tool for evaluating certain religious beliefs. For example, a modern example is the scientific exploration of why are people altruistic. Religious people says it is and exercise of "free will" choosing good over evil. Science says it could be a genetic coding we humans, and primates, developed throgh evolution that helped us survive as a species.

So I say, science has a definite role to play in addressing religious beliefs.

I don't understand how it's even relevant, unless you're arguing that there isn't free will and you're going to somehow attempt to tie that into an argument against the Bible.

And there's a difference between saying "science says this CAN'T happen," and what you're attempting to bring in with your argument, where science merely gives another explanation.

[mpjh]

You are not making any sense.

[Backglass]

You are not making any sense.

"Same as it ever was..." - David Byrne

[FabledIntegral]

You are not making any sense.

Sorry you fail to follow.