wrong newsgroup
In <73d56s$4dl$1 at usc.edu> "Dane Myers" <iotarho at yahoo.com> writes:
>>>Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning.
>>>Ironically in attempting this, you have perfectly illustrated the flaw
in
>yours. While faith-healers and missionaries and the like may cling to
the
>"faith requires no proof" dogma to defend their doctrines from the
>dissecting scrutiny of the scientific method, I would argue that they,
nor
>you, has any valid argument whatsoever in saying that the foundations
of
>religion can not some day be tested. And as you pointed out, my
argument
>might be idiotic, but yours is plainly blind. Idiots can be taught,
but the
>blind are utterly helpless (euphemistically, of course).
>>>>>Darwin's original hypothesis was untestable in his time, but it is
>>certainly testable (and has been tested) today. The difference
>>between his hypothesis and the hypothesis of Creation of God's
>>existence is that the latter CANNOT be tested for verification/
>>falsification.
>>>