Yeah maybe I'm just trying to stir up trouble..
So yes. How would rate that theory of Darwin's.
As a usefull description, Or a bunch of hooey?

aklim, I was going to post a sarcastic comment about your note not making any sense, but fortunately I look at the title of the thread.

Oooops! I'm an inadvertent hijacker. Again.

You don't mean the irrational, spotty, sporadic and thin evidence some give to support the 'theory' of evolution do you ? To say nothing of the fact it generates money in the form of 'grants', which if creation was accepted as fact, would not...get grants, that is. ? :P

Your reply here........

Religious dogma tends to make a lousy foundation for science, eh Gallileo?

http://www.users.bigpond.com/wyndkelm/cartoon.gif

Are you willing to take the time to go through this step by step?

Maybe he was someone who didn't care. Went to the parades and what not for the free food but didn't care enough to vote.

You're on your own there, aklim.

My invitation is to folks who'd like to explore the theory of evolution and how it may or may not impinge on faith. I'll say up-front that I self-described as a superstitious agnostic. What I mean is that I am open to being convinced of your (whomever) definition of God. I have seen enough of life that I am amazed, but not longer surprised by serendipity, sensu Jung. I believe that there is a better than even chance that atheism is too confining and is in any case, very likely an incomplete description of reality. I think we (people) tend to confuse allegory, myth, coincidence, nature, and fact with religion. None of which are God, at least to me none of them are God.

Who was it said..." There are no atheists in fox holes..." ?

probably Ogg the caveman.

Sort of open ended...
In only the most general terms... where would you place God in the picture of a world portrayed by science?
Is it outside, in everything, a governing principal?
Does it have needs or a plan?

I of course realize you are a self admitted agnostic (thats almost a gnostic) so for speculative purposes, if you had to go a mining for religion, where would you look for the vein?

I deleted this thread for going nowhere earlier today but I am sitcky: stuck with it for now...

Take your time and anyone ...feel free to answer. Or not.

And how would you rate it as compared to?

You speak derisively of Evolution as "just a theory" and yet you do not know what a theory is and suggest an unsupportable fairy tale in it's place?
Theory:
5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Evolution is currently the ONLY theory of life with any great amount of factual support. A theory in the scientific/mathematical sense is not a random unsupportable proposition it is a statement based on ideas and facts that can be analyzed and tested repeatedly. If it is correct it can be agreed upon eventually by anyone that is able to understand it. Many theories are mostly correct but not complete and evolution is definitely not complete but the fundamental ideas have been proven over and over again.

[QUOTE=A264172]Sort of open ended...
In only the most general terms... where would you place God in the picture of a world portrayed by science?
Is it outside, in everything, a governing principal?
Does it have needs or a plan?

I of course realize you are a self admitted agnostic (thats almost a gnostic) so for speculative purposes, if you had to go a mining for religion, where would you look for the vein?
QUOTE]
If God obeyed my description of what it ought to be, then God should be as it is: Outside of human ability to test, sample, prove or disprove it's existence. If it were demonstrable by human means then it would be a phenomenon of nature, not that which created nature. I see no reason to worship a natural thing (though I do think it is wise and responsible to be respectful of nature). Therefore, God must not be natural, but must be supernatural to be worthy of worship. Or as Christians believe that God may be known through faith alone? There is no God-o-meter.

Science is for looking at nature. If you want to understand nature in human terms, science is the best tool ever devised.

Science is not for looking at supernatural for the obvious reason that supernatural does not exist within nature and therefore is not a proper subject for a tool designed for natural science. Use your sense of smell to study Van Gogh. We use the best tools for the subject at hand.

God may have a plan for nature. I don't know. It is not an hypothesis that can be tested using science. Some folks look at the rigor and consistency of scientific explanations o reality and see in that orderliness the hand of God. That's fine with me. But science cannot see that hand. Doesn't mean its not there, just mean it has no effect on the observable universe nor the instrumentation that we put in the universe. This is not surprising and point directly back to the natural/supernatural thing.

I much prefer the Greek or Roman gods where you could get intercession with the sacrifice of a lamb or goat and they were a little less lofty.

Jesus was a conservative......why?

Becasue he certainly would not be supporting Gay pride parades...

He would not be supporting Pedophilia like the ACLU is....

He woud not be extorting hard earned money from the working people to support the lazy people who don't want to work.

So you are saying he voted for Bush? What state did he vote from?

How do you know what he supported or not? They didn't have Gay Pride parades in his day and there was nothing mentioned in the bible that said "Jesus said XXXXXX". No direct quotes from him that said "No Gay Pride Parades."

I don't think they had an issue with Pedophilia or the ACLU. I don't believe they actually supported Pedophilia itself. The issue was "Are you responsible if someone takes what you said on a public forum" and not just pedophilia. Like I said, would you be responsible for it if someone rocked a pedophile and said it came from you?

We had conservatives that didn't do anything about the extortion system when they were a majority. What does that make them?