From: jim.phillips@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this   
      
     To: alt.battlestar-galactica,   
   On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:   
      
   >   
   > "Jim Phillips"  wrote in message   
   > news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051005094552.11480H-100000@mail...   
   > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 09:57:20 -0400, Jim Phillips    
   > >> wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> > That's a belief, not a theory.  And you don't even specify which god   
   > >> >(yahweh, zeus, amaterasu).   
   > >>   
   > >> It is both,  And, it could be tested.   
   > >   
   > > How?   
   > >   
   > >>  In the history of modern scientific   
   > >> thought, it was taken for granted for centuries.  Only recently, since   
   > >> the   
   > >> so-called "enlightenment" - a misnomer, if ever there was one - has it   
   > >> been   
   > >> questioned.   
   > >   
   > > Actualy scientific inquiry (as we understand the word today) didn't   
   > > start *until* the enlightenment.   
   >   
   > Excuse me???? Where have you studied history???? The Scientific Method was   
   > made by Christians after the Reformation.   
      
   	Oops, my bad--I mixed the two up in my head.   
      
   > >> The evidence supporting the creation account of the universe is dismissed   
   > >> as   
   > >> irrelevant,   
   > >   
   > > Try nonexistent--words in a book don't count as evidence supporting   
   > > the creation account unless you water down the definition of evidence to   
   > > the   
   > > point of meaninglessness.  And even then, there's just as much evidence   
   > > for   
   > > all of the other religious books out there as for the old testament one.   
   > >   
   > Evidence in the sense of the type of evidence used in a Court Trial. It is   
   > not all based on the Scientific Method.   
      
   	No, evidence in the sense that none of them have actual evidence   
   in the scientific method sense.   
      
   > >> and the account itself dismissed as fable, and all this is done   
   > >> a priori without any investigation whatsoever into the claims.   
   > >   
   > > Not so--the universe itself declares the absurdity of a literal   
   > > reading of genesis (not to mention the inherent contradictions between   
   > > Genesis I & II).   
   >   
   > What are you talking about?   
      
   	The Earth was not created before the Sun, Moon and stars (this is   
   only one example of the evidence of the universe contradicting the biblical   
   account of genesis).  I posted 3 contradictions between the Genesis accounts   
   in another thread.   
      
   > >> It is a specious premise that asserts that scientific inquiry is valid as   
   > >> scientific inquiry when it explicitly excludes God from the explanation.   
   > >   
   > > "God" doesn't make testable claims, so it's out in terms of science.   
   > > The *only* time science pays attention to god is when his followers make   
   > > testable claims, such as a literal interpretation of genesis.  Such a   
   > > claim   
   > > is easy to demolish.   
   > >   
   > See my comment on the court trial.   
      
   	Is it going to somehow magically produce evidence of god's   
   existence?   
      
   --   
   Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net   
   "I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York   
   Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the   
   Right.  The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and   
   violent."  -- Dan Savage   
      
   ---   
    * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out   
   free usenet!   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92   
   Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)