From: kees.boer@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this   
      
     To: alt.battlestar-galactica,   
      
   "Jim Phillips"  wrote in message   
   news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006100826.29688E-100000@mail...   
   > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:53:24 -0400, Jim Phillips    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > "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.   
   >>   
   >> You ain't done it yet, and no one else has, either.  Those claims have   
   >> withstood all attempts to undermine them for nearly four millennia.   
   >> There   
   >> isn't a single bit of empirical evidence, or a single scientific theory   
   >> that   
   >> refutes, obfuscates, or undermines the least statement in Scripture.   
   >   
   > The universe is older than a few thousand years.   
   > Birds did not come about before other land animals.   
   > The Earth did not exist before the stars.   
   > Humans were not created separate from all of the other animals,   
   > humans are animals by any sensible definition.   
   > There was no water above and below the primordial Earth; the folks   
   > who wrote the bible thought that rain came from waters above the earth and   
   > well water came from waters below the earth.   
   >   
   Why is it impossible for God to create these things with and apparent age?   
   Remember Adam and Eve were created not as babies. Thus a week after the   
   creation, you would not be able to come to the conclusion what came first,   
   because God gave them an age to start off with. I.e. trees had rings. God   
   spoke and it came to be.   
      
      
   > There are more contradictions between what we know and what the   
   > bible claims--these are a few of the contradictions from Genesis 1 off   
   > the top of my head.   
   >   
   > Since   
   >> science makes no claim to absolute truth in the first place, it is   
   >> impossible that it could be used in an effort to undermine that which is   
   >> declared to be absolute truth.   
   >   
   > So *anything* that claims to be "absolute truth" *is* absolute   
   > truth???   
   >   
   No, it can be tested.   
      
   >> Newton himself   
   >   
   > Snip rest of statement--appeal to authority may work for bible idolators   
   > such as yourself, but it doesn't mean anything in science.  Science cares   
   > about theories, not who made the theories.   
   >   
   >> Give me a break.  Christ said,   
   >   
   > Another snip--see above (besides, Jesus wasn't a scientist).   
   >   
   > --   
   > 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)