Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius, it was an admirable attempt but really you should have just quoted yourself from about a dozen pages ago when you had this exact same discussion with GG to no avail.

Maybe someday he will understand that, for the most part, scientists and those that believe in what scientists claim, understand that there are holes and gaps in scientific thought and that we know those are there but that those are part of the process of gaining knowledge about the world around us. We don't know everything about Volcanoes and earthquakes, but we still believe that they exist and have theories about why and how they happen.

GG, guess what, a lot of scientists do believe in a God-created universe. "Let there be light" manifesting itself as the Big Bang is more awe-inspiring and strengthens my faith more than God flicking a light switch.

With respect, the reason why I keep having to repeat it, is that new people keep popping into the thread without reading the last 30 pages.

I don't know.... maybe it's time to close the thread since the same topics keep coming up?

GG

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

Having to repeat it means that you don't understand Polonius' point. You were wrong when you first mentioned it and you're wrong now.

I'm fine with you saying the Earth is 6,000 years old (I think it's silly but hey, you can believe that the sky is green for all I care) but to say that those who disagree with you have "faith" in the Big Bang theory like you have faith in the Bible is simply incorrect.

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

Ozymandias wrote:Having to repeat it means that you don't understand Polonius' point. You were wrong when you first mentioned it and you're wrong now.

Or I was right the first time and am right now?

Look it's just your opinion that I'm wrong, that's fine.... your welcome to that opinion. Why are you getting so upset?


GG

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing fact from opinion.

Greebynog wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

When did I say that I have seen God? So you believe that you have to literally "see" God to have evidence that He exists?

GG

It's not a case of an 'opinion', you said that scientists have the same blind faith in the Big Bang that you have in the Bible and that's demonstrably false. If something can be tested and redefined, it ain't faith.

And I'm not upset. I'm frustrated in the fact that you just don't seem to get it. I have the same frustration after arguing with brick walls (I don't recommend it).

generalgrog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

When did I say that I have seen God? So you believe that you have to literally "see" God to have evidence that He exists?

GG

Ok, let's see this evidence then. Remember, The Bible: not valid evidence.

Ozymandias wrote:It's not a case of an 'opinion', you said that scientists have the same blind faith in the Big Bang that you have in the Bible and that's demonstrably false. If something can be tested and redefined, it ain't faith.

And I'm not upset. I'm frustrated in the fact that you just don't seem to get it. I have the same frustration after arguing with brick walls (I don't recommend it).

Ozy, please go back and point out from any any of my posts where I said "that scientists have the same blind faith in the Big Bang that you have in the Bible "

Maybe your so zealous in your belief that your willing to put words into my mouth? :-)


GG

Greebynog wrote:

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

Actually, I have got lovely hair!! lol

generalgrog wrote:

Ozy, please go back and point out from any any of my posts where I said "that scientists have the same blind faith in the Big Bang that you have in the Bible "

Maybe your so zealous in your belief that your willing to put words into my mouth? :-)


GG

You're right, you didn't say those exact words. What you said was:

generalgrog wrote:
Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?

This is pecisely what I have been getting at, if you look at the previous posts and other threads on this issue.(we covered it a few times allready)

I bolded the relevant part. I don't really see a difference between what you actually said and what we're reading into it. The kicker is you then say:

The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.

GG

Which we already know. What you leave out is that there is an enormous amount of evidence collected to substantiate that theory. And, unlike your religious dogma, when new evidence is found, the theory is modified to take into account the new evidence or thrown out entirely and a new theory is made that better fits the evidence we have. Your "infallible Bible" dogma does not allow for any change (as any change would inherently refute the infallible-ness of the Bible). That's why for you to equate your beliefs with Scientific theory is disingenuous and willfully ignorant.

But what do I know, I argue with brick walls.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"
GG

No I didn't. There is no information which corroborates the Biblical creation story. There is the story itself, as portrayed in the Bible, and the faith various individuals have in it. That's it. No objective, experiential evidence. No first hand testimony. Not even a decent grounding in mathematical modeling. Someone told a story once, and a lot of people have believed in it for a long time. That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"
GG

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

generalgrog wrote:With respect, the reason why I keep having to repeat it, is that new people keep popping into the thread without reading the last 30 pages.

I don't know.... maybe it's time to close the thread since the same topics keep coming up?

GG

So, because people keep bringing a topic up that you keep getting obliterated on, we should shut the thread? How about, you simply realize you're not going to win this one, and stop fighting it. Even if we were all wrong (which we aren't), dragging it back up every time somebody is mean to religion is simply going to derail the thread. Based on your later posts where you seem to fall back on semantics and hair splitting, you might be right in wanting to close the thread. It's a shame, because it's been a good one.

Anyways, I would argue that faith does not require evidence in the scientific/legal sense, otherwise it's not really faith, it's judgment.

Blind faith implies a faith for which there is no real justification. To a christian, there is enormous justification for our faith. For non-believers, there isn't. Keep that in mind in discussions on faith.

Anyways, I'm guess you're not going to try at actually argue your position that science relies on faith to the same extent that religion does, at least not on the merits. You will lose, you know that you will lose, and continuing to do so will only make you look either more ignorant or more desperate to cling to some shred of victory.

I am, amazingly, not yet convince that you simply don't understand the different forms of what is called faith, so I'll try once more to explain it.

Faith in god is a trust and belief in a diety, based on personal revelation and a choice to simply follow it.

Faith in another person is based on a judgment of their past actions, projected into the future.

Faith in Science is based on the evidence gathered, the rigor of testing of theories, the usefulness of the theories, and the availability of other options.

In all instances we use the term faith to describe a trust or belief in something we don't know for a fact to be able to support us. The crucial difference is that in science, the faith is communal and generally accepted based on empirical, repeatable evidence. That doesn't make it better than religion, it's just that with proper education and intellect, every person should be able to repeat the results of any given theory. Sometimes within a field of science (and often outside of the field, and nearly always among laypeople), we accept science without testing or rigor. We have faith in the scientific community, as they've generally proven themselves to be on the ball, and willing to admit when they were wrong. The technology that surrounds us shows that science is, well, working.

So yes, I've not collected background radiation from distance galaxies in order to test the big bang theory, but I have faith in the scientific community to not completely screw us. If they had a better theory, they'd trot it out. Even incorrect theories aren't bad, as they often still lead to progress (phlogiston and aether worked for generations).

Yes, there are assumptions and leaps, but there is also an underlying empirical framework. We can see the red shift in the galaxies, and that the most distant ones are moving the fastest. We know that certain elements cannot be formed in any of the current processes discovered yet in the galaxy. We know that stars are formed, live, and die. It's a sketchy theory, but simply by nature of using all of the facts and data, it is superior to saying "I don't know." When god created the universe, there was a mechanism, just like how when he created water he combined hydrogen and oxygen, or placed tectonic plates over a geologically active earth. Figuring out how is independent from why, and has nothing to do with figuring who created the galaxy.

So, my questions to you are:
1) why do you think both systems have the same levels and incidences of faith
2) What is wrong with accepting science's best guess in matters of theological doubt, but not in any other area?
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?
4) Do you think that the scientific community is being sinister in foisting theories such as macro evolution and the big bang on humanity, or do you find the actual scientific process to be deeply flawed either in theory or in practice. If neither, why do you choose to hold science as being so unreliable?

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"
GG

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

You know, I'd have a bit more respect for your arguments if you actually refuted them. If somebody states something that isn't true, refute it! Simply saying "that's an opinion" is a sloppy way of discrediting a statement without actually doing any work.

What I imagine Dogma was saying was that there is no evidence, absent the testimony of the bible, for the events and acts described within. There is evidence that much of the bible was written years or even generations after the events described (particularly true of the Pentateuch and the gospels & Acts).

There is no empirical evidence of god. If there were, faith would mean a lot less. It would be a political decision, not a spiritual one. There are testimonials, but the key here is that science is incredibly suspicious of testimonials. They want data, they want repeatability, and they want peer review.

So, have I missed soemthing, or is there evidence for, say, Christianity equal even to that for the Big Band? And if so, what is it?

I read a nice quote in a book on NLP(I can't remember who was being quoted), and I feel that it has given me some comfort in these matters of uncertainty. It went as follows:

'It's better to have some of the questions, than all of the answers.'

My own interpretation of this quote led me to this:
1st level of question:WHAT, WHERE, WHEN: ie the observable (personally,I find WHO irrelevant)

2nd level of question: HOW: obviously the mechanics of any given state of being.

3rd level of question: WHY: this I believe to be beyond the realms of human conciousness, so, possibly, into the realms of Divine.

I have found it quite surprizing how useful it is to stop asking WHY, instead, asking HOW.
This doesn't mean that I feel the need to ignore any sense of WHY, just not to waste too much time thinking about it, for WHY is something I can't reach, yet! ( but perhaps it is already reaching me)

So this has turned into a Pile on Grog thread.

Ok.

First of all I never approached this as a contest. I don't feel a need to "win" this. The only thing I have done, and I believe that I have been pretty consistent with, is to give my viewpoint. This is an open forum afterall. If you think I don't realize that my viewpoints are not controversial in a place where people play Science fiction fantasy games, you would be mistaken. I used to be much like you Polonius and ozy, in that I believed in evolution at one point. It was my conversion experiance where I came into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that caused me to question many things I had been taught from a secular world view. There hasn't been any obliteration as you put it, I think I have presented my view point very well, and I don't care if you don't agree with me. But I have tried to not disrespect you as you have started to do to me, with the last few posts.

These last few posts of yours shows me that you take this stuff way to personally. The only reason I suggested shutting the thread was because you seem to be getting offended by me repeatedly presenting my view point when I see new people enter the thread that haven't read stuff we allready discussed and they make statements which I feel need to be responded too.

I will continue to present my view, even though you want to pretend that you have somehow "conquered" me.

So in the spirit of continuing the discussion-

Polonius wrote:

Polonius wrote:
So, my questions to you are:
1) why do you think both systems have the same levels and incidences of faith

I never said they had the same levels. I'm not sure that you can even define the levels per se. All I ever said was that you need faith (whatever level that is)to believe in Macro evolution. You or anyone else in this thread has done nothing to disprove that.

From dictionary.com
Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (Emphasis mine because Macro evolution is an idea)
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.A set of principles or beliefs. .

Polonius wrote:
2) What is wrong with accepting science's best guess in matters of theological doubt, but not in any other area?

Nothing is wrong, but I believe that the Bible is the final arbitrator.

Polonius wrote:
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?

I have never said that you couldn't be a Christian and believe in science(specifically Macro evolution). I did however state that I believed that you would be in error.

Polonius wrote:
4) Do you think that the scientific community is being sinister in foisting theories such as macro evolution and the big bang on humanity, or do you find the actual scientific process to be deeply flawed either in theory or in practice. If neither, why do you choose to hold science as being so unreliable?

I believe that scientist are human and can make errors, which assumptions can lead to errors. I personally believe that uniformitariansm is an error, because it assumes that nature has always been the same and has never changed. I do get tired of turning on the science channell and watching some of these shows where the scientists come on and talk about evolution in this almost reverential way, calling it the "miracle" of evolution such and so forth.

Wow I didn't mean to type so much.

GG

generalgrog wrote:So this has turned into a Pile on Grog thread.

It has not. It has turned into a thread in which you are arguing against multiple people, alternating between claiming it's just your opinion and then presenting arguments on it's behalf. You have repeatedly ignored counter-arguments and continue to make claims that have been repeatedly shot down (see below). Not all defenses of the faith are noble acts. Sometimes you really are wrong.

First of all I never approached this as a contest. I don't feel a need to "win" this. The only thing I have done, and I believe that I have been pretty consistent with, is to give my viewpoint. This is an open forum afterall. If you think I don't realize that my viewpoints are not controversial in a place where people play Science fiction fantasy games, you would be mistaken. I used to be much like you Polonius and ozy, in that I believed in evolution at one point. It was my conversion experiance where I came into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that caused me to question many things I had been taught from a secular world view. There hasn't been any obliteration as you put it, I think I have presented my view point very well, and I don't care if you don't agree with me. But I have tried to not disrespect you as you have started to do to me, with the last few posts.

I think there comes a point where ignoring what a person says while still trying to maintain a dialogue is at least partially disrespectful. I point it out because you don't actually respond to my arguments, you tend to dance around them.

These last few posts of yours shows me that you take this stuff way to personally. The only reason I suggested shutting the thread was because you seem to be getting offended by me repeatedly presenting my view point when I see new people enter the thread that haven't read stuff we already discussed and they make statements which I feel need to be responded too.

Again, "you take this stuff too personally" is a tactic used to minimize a person points and positions. Much like your repeated use of "it's just opinion," it's a way of lowering stakes. It's a rhetorical trick. And I'm sorry, i consider the search for truth and the nature of god to be pretty important, so it's something I do take personally.
I will continue to present my view, even though you want to pretend that you have somehow "conquered" me.

Polonius wrote:
So, my questions to you are:
1) why do you think both systems have the same levels and incidences of faith

I never said they had the same levels. I'm not sure that you can even define the levels per se. All I ever said was that you need faith (whatever level that is)to believe in Macro evolution. You or anyone else in this thread has done nothing to disprove that.

Well, no, but we have explained multiple times the different kinds of faith, and how they're not all the same thing, and that faith in god is different from faith in a friend or faith in gravity.

From dictionary.com
Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (Emphasis mine because Macro evolution is an idea)
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.A set of principles or beliefs. .

If you actually looked at these definitions, you'd see what Dogma and I have been trying to explain. There are six different definitions of faith here, and not all apply uniformly to religion and science. All six apply to Christianity, but only 1, 3, and 6 apply to science. Maybe levels of faith was a bad turn of phrase, but the nature of faith in science is different from the nature of faith in science, because of the lack of material evidence!

Polonius wrote:
2) What is wrong with accepting science's best guess in matters of theological doubt, but not in any other area?

Nothing is wrong, but I believe that the Bible is the final arbitrator.

Do you think that the Bible says macro evolution and big bang cosmology are wrong? How do you respond to the idea that the story of creation simply left out the mechanics of creation (like the big bang and speciation) or that god left those things there simply to hide his fingerprints? The problem is that you seem to be challenging the science head on, rather than simply ignoring it. There was a mechanism for the creation of energy and matter, and there is a system behind all of taxonomy. I guess I just don't see how even a literal reading of the bible invalidates anything in science as science. It's one thing to say "macro-evolution might explain how species will continue to evolve, but since all species were creating 6500 years ago, it really doesn't matter" and be at least logically consistent. One thing a literal reading of the bible allows, don't forget, is a certain flexiblity with time. God is above and beyond time, and so can do a lot more in a day than mortals think.

Polonius wrote:
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?

I have never said that you couldn't be a Christian and believe in science(specifically Macro evolution). I did however state that I believed that you would be in error.

Why? And what does that error mean for me? Is it sinful? Just a mistake? I'm genuinely curious.

Polonius wrote:
4) Do you think that the scientific community is being sinister in foisting theories such as macro evolution and the big bang on humanity, or do you find the actual scientific process to be deeply flawed either in theory or in practice. If neither, why do you choose to hold science as being so unreliable?

I believe that scientist are human and can make errors, which assumptions can lead to errors. I personally believe that uniformitariansm is an error, because it assumes that nature has always been the same and has never changed. I do get tired of turning on the science channell and watching some of these shows where the scientists come on and talk about evolution in this almost reverential way, calling it the "miracle" of evolution such and so forth.

First off, do you believe in young earth creationism? If so, what does it matter what aspects of nature can change over millions of years if there never has been millions of year?

Life is the single most interesting thing on this planet. The creation of self replicating DNA that can change and adapt is quite simply miraculous. It's either the single most astounding thing to ever develop in a godless universe, or it's a beautifully elegant design by the creator. Why wouldn't reverence be paid? We're reverent about the Grand Canyon and the depths of space, why not life itself?

But to get back to my question, which you sort of answered, you simply think that all of science is simply wrong with regards to evolution and big bang cosmology. That they've all made mistakes, covered them up, and nobody has really blown the whistle on it?

Or do you simply think that they believe this stuff in good faith but that there were enough mistakes to get the wrong result. If the former, I think it's a tough row to hoe as there are lots of scientists trying to earn their bones, and somebody would blow the whistle. If the latter, than where is the better theory? Macro evolution has been a dominant theory in science for ~130 years, and it's only gotten tighter and better supported. I hesitate to use this term, but to think that there "could be" a massive system of errors behind it is really a jump of blind faith. Of course there could be mistakes, but what are they? Where are they most likely to exist? What is the replacement theory? As I've stated multiple times, scientific theories work on a "King of the hill" model: one only gets down when another pushes it down. You could invalidate 99% of the evidence and work towards macro evolution, and it will remain the dominant theory until something replaces it.

I guess I just don't understand. The Bible allows for mechanisms to god's works. He didn't just magic up water, he used storms to flood the earth. He didn't materialize Adam, he formed him from clay. The Bible simply says what happened, it doesn't include everything.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

No, that is fact. Stating that the Bible has been held in high regard for 1700 years indicates, at the minimum, that socialization affects what people believe. Whether there is a God at work is an addendum to the mere fact, not a necessary component of the process. Honestly, I can't even think of a single respected theologian who would disagree with such a point. Matters of spirituality and religion are tangential to science. They do not supplant it any more than science supplants them.

Its like writing a review of a movie. You may love the movie, it might touch a special chord in your heart. However, it could still be a bad movie by the standards that movies are judged. As movie critic it is your responsibility to reconcile your emotional connection to the movie with its poor technical execution.

The Biblical creation story clearly resonates with you, but the fact that it is a poor causal explanation of observed, natural phenomenon remains. Its your responsibility as a believer to reconcile the Bible with the observed world, not simply discount observation because it disagrees with your chosen holy book.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

No, that is fact. Stating that the Bible has been held in high regard for 1700 years indicates, at the minimum, that socialization affects what people believe. Whether there is a God at work is an addendum to the mere fact, not a necessary component of the process. Honestly, I can't even think of a single respected theologian who would disagree with such a point. Matters of spirituality and religion are tangential to science. They do not supplant it any more than science supplants them.

Its like writing a review of a movie. You may love the movie, it might touch a special chord in your heart. However, it could still be a bad movie by the standards that movies are judged. As movie critic it is your responsibility to reconcile your emotional connection to the movie with its poor technical execution.

The Biblical creation story clearly resonates with you, but the fact that it is a poor causal explanation of observed, natural phenomenon remains. Its your responsibility as a believer to reconcile the Bible with the observed world, not simply discount observation because it disagrees with your chosen holy book.

Allright, Dogma is see what you meant now. And now that you have explained what you meant, I take what I said back. It appeared (to me) that you were implying that my belief structure was based on evidence of socialization, but you were really making a generalization.

GG

Polonius, I'll get back wth you later, I'm tired tonight.


GG

It seems to me, in my personal observation, that problems occur when people take a belief, and consider it part of their identity. Clearly, or perhaps not so clearly to someone who might believe different, is that belief is a behaviour, even a choice to some degree, and so exists on a different neurological level than ones actual identity, which remains the same, from before any beliefs are formed, right through a persons life.(ie I was exactly the sameperson in the womb, through childhood, adolescence, to the present),it is behaviours, capabilities, and beliefs that change. By accepting a belief(or a behaviour or capability for that matter) as our identity, I have heard many cases where a person labels themselves as a 'Creationist', or a 'Evolutionist', even a 'Bad person' or a 'Smoker' etc, they are taking a belief/behaviour(s), and locking into into their very Identity, their subsequent capabilities to do anything other are substantialy limited. I personaly believe that we are " what we are", not "what we do". This allows, in my opinion, much more flexibilty, and space for personal development. For this reason, I will not tell my self I am carpenter, I am just a man that can do carpentry, I am not an artist, I am a man that does some art, I am not a smoker, I am a man that has been smoking. You see, no limits, just open possibilities.(I still could be wrong, and am nearly certain that at least one person on this thread may misunderstand or disagree)
I AM WHAT I AM, (is that the message of "God")

On the othe hand, I could just be a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac.............
as sometimes I lay awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog!

Uri, that would only work if you let your god out at night to go to the bathroom.

dogma wrote:

The Biblical creation story clearly resonates with you, but the fact that it is a poor causal explanation of observed, natural phenomenon remains. Its your responsibility as a believer to reconcile the Bible with the observed world, not simply discount observation because it disagrees with your chosen holy book.

it would seem he is not alone

... so... an eclipse is like a brownout then ?

Its impossible to explain the world with science alone and its impossible to explain the world with religon alone. You need a fair balance of both in some cases.

If I may make a point here?

A lot of people blame Christianity for causing worldwide misery and discrimination. Sadly, it's all due to those few men high in the church who tend to abuse their power.

Up with democratic papal voting, I say.

Just like its only those few mullahs and such in the Islamic world that pervert the religon to make suicide bombers. You can always blame the guys at top, no matter what you compare it with.