In article <73dapi$9ha at sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>>> wrong newsgroup
>
I agree with Dr. LeFever here. I think that talk.origins would be the
appropriate venue to continue this discussion.
>> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>>At talk.origins you can discuss these issues til you're blue in the face.
--
Scott Chase (note followups at anthym at webtv.net)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
