@newjaninev2: Is being honest written out anywhere? Is being faithful written out anywhere? Is decency and objectivity written out anywhere for discussions or debates? No you dont have to exhibit respect for others. There is a reason that you refer to God as a magical entity. God has absolutely nothing to do with magic.You have already shown clearly that you are not willing to respect those who do not agree with you. This relates to the area of ethics and emotional intelligence. Again, Gods description of man is perfect and cant be surpassed in accuracy. I understand that you are an emotional being and that reason is only a fraction of your personality. The same holds true for me and for all other people including scientists.

"Is being honest written out anywhere?"
Are you suggesting that I have been dishonest?
Are you suggesting that I have been unfaithful or indecent? Please clarify
I refer to your god as a magical entity because you make claims that it can perform magic i.e. it can violate the natural laws of the universe at will.

You have already shown clearly that you are not willing to respect those who do not agree with you.
Why should I respect them, or anyone else? What I do very much respect is their right to disagree with me, and to express their disagreement, and I respect those things so much that I am always very happy to engage with them in discussions about those areas of disagreement.

Ethics is germane only inasmuch as I will not harm you unless I first warn you (that is the heart of ethical behaviour). Do you feel that I have misled you in that area?
Emotional intelligence? What is that?
"Gods description of man is perfect and cant be surpassed in accuracy"
If you make such unsupported claims, you should expect me to ignore them.That seems reasonable.

Why do you introduce the topic of emotion into the matter?

@newjaninev2: Girl you are killing it here. ^_^
You're posts are made of distilled, uncut win.

@Pherick: Then again, creationism and anthropocentric hubris do rather go hand in hand...

@Pherick: Nothing. I referred to your attitude and your arrogant stance toward Christians. There is another proverb that suits you here:
Dummheit und stolz sind aus einem Holz. Stupidity and pride are made out of the same wood.

@Dreammmer: Are we just throwing insults now? Should I look up some quotes and use them to insult you? No thanks, I have better things to do with my time. As I mentioned before, try again if you have some actual facts, sources or arguments.

@MaryMum: With respect, the christian idea of a creator is a hypothesis, not a theory.

As you know, scientific theories are supported by evidence that has been tested and not found wanting.

@newjaninev2: @MaryMum: It's important to remember that christians have invented their own "Hypothesis of Evolution" with deliberate flaws so they can easily debunk it. They then represent it as the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection to decieve the lay person unfamiliar with it.

As you say, it's a strawman. They have no evidence to refute the genuine theory.

@suzie1960: Yes, that was a mistake on my part. I'm usually quite careful in that respect, but apparently I slipped up. Thank you for pointing out the error.

@Dreammmer: "...if one may use that description"
As I said... life is fine-tuned for the Earth

@newjaninev2: And the one who fine tuned life for the earth is the God of the bible, who also fine tuned the earth for life.

and fine-tuned the universe for black holes?

We have no need of magical entities for any of that.

We understand very well the course of life's development on Earth

@MethDozer: I agree entirely. But @GraceFromEP was talking about birth as if it was a miracle, and I was simply explaining why it's not in a qualitative way, explaining the bias that modern medicine has caused. The science, of course, is what you described, but I wanted to keep it simple, as I usually do when writing to someone who doesn't have a higher degree in the sciences. Also, I wrote about 800 words, and I think that was already pushing it a bit, so I couldn't really flesh out each point. Nevertheless, the extra context and depth is helpful to the debate, so thank you.

@MaryMum: Oh I know.

I completely agree with you though on the idea of eternal afterlife and life having a grand purpose to be depressing.

@suzie1960: If you get the evidence then you no longer are on faith so you start back where you started.

Douglas Adams explained this paradox and logical fallacy perfectly.

@MethDozer: The Babel Fish? I've read the first four of the trilogy, I'll have to get the fifth sometime.

@suzie1960: lol.. yeah.

@GreatLakesGuy: Too funny! Dawkins mentions exogenesis, and the creationists think he's talking about creationism.

@newjaninev2: Dawkins admits to intelligent design. He does not say it is God rather he talks about some sort of alien race. Live long and prosper.

@GreatLakesGuy: He doesn't "admit" to anything.. dear god. People who watch this and take away "Dawkins admits to intelligent design" are dense. Listening comprehension ... learn it!

Actually, if we're going to be talking about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, it will probably be helpful to first establish some understanding of what is meant by Theory.

Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.

Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.

You’ll hear people say “Science has proven that this is true”. Only the advertisers say this. You’ll also hear “Science has not proven that this is true”. This shows a lack of awareness of how science works. Science has never proven that something is true, because science never tries to prove that anything is true. Science tries to disprove its own theories, and accepts those theories only so long as they can’t be disproved.

@Drdirt: I have not studied Hinduism. And I did not study Christianity in order to become a Christian. In fact, no Hindu studied Hinduism to believe. Hinduism does not know conversion or what the bible describes as being born again spiritually. I can only repeat myself here to answer your question:
"Because I am more convinced of Christ and His teaching. Christ died for me on the cross and rose from the dead for me. The gods of Hinduism did nothing for me."
I am convinced. For over 40 years I am convinced and I have not doubted this conviction a second.
The discussion here is ample proof that the biblical account of human beings is true: man is a sinner, errs, is rebellious, lacks trust and respect and is easily mislead by ill feelings, pride and hidden motives. God says it perfectly in His word: "The fool says there is no God."

So... no problems?

@CopperCicada: Are you hoping for Gould's(?) non-overlapping magisteria? You're American, so it's unlikely that you'll see anything like that happening around you (especially these days).

In fact, out here in The World, there's a strong move towards ring-fencing American-sourced science... kind of putting it into quarantine... because the sources contain so much contamination.

You should expect to see the centre of mass for research move towards Europe (northern Europe) and Asia. It's surprising that your society seems unconcerned by the shift. America relies heavily on R&D and the resultant technology, and this is driven by science. It would therefore seem somewhat perilous to deliberately make yourselves into a scientific backwater.

@CopperCicada: Coincidentally, minutes after reading your last comment I saw an interview on CNN... someone called Fareed Zakaria interviewing Neil deGrasse Tyson.

You might like to see if you can pick it up off the internet, because Tyson made some very cogent remarks about educating children in science.