[narby]

His existence is not theoretical. Evolution is.

Well, now here we are at the prime directive of Creationists. To create a "scientific aura" around their claims that somehow they've proven God's existence.

This is the goal of Creationism.

It's just a carbon copy of the "scientific" methods of the Environmentalists, which are just as bogus. Wherein they take one small slice of scientific evidence, ignore the rest, and procede to install themselves in positions of power.

Maybe someday the Creationists will win and we'll have a Creationism Promotion Agency operating out of the old EPA dept.

What post are you angling for Dataman? Counting your government retirement checks yet?

[Dimensio]

It's just a carbon copy of the "scientific" methods of the Environmentalists, which are just as bogus.

At least some environmentalist claims are built upon truth. If you pour toxic substances into a lake, the life in the lake will probably die and the water will be unsafe for human consumption.

I can't find a similar truthful foundation in creaitonism -- at least not Dataman's variety.

[Dataman]

Well, now here we are at the prime directive of Creationists. To create a "scientific aura" around their claims that somehow they've proven God's existence.

You're fabricating again, Narby.

We all know it is a given that the FR evolutionists any argument that dampens their evaporating hope that evolution is true-- no matter what the evidence, proof or source. Darwinism is dead and the pall bearers are waiting for another theory to come along before they drop it in the ground.

We all know that the standards of proof to an FR evolutionist are the thickness of a razor blade for evolution and infinitely high for creation.

We all know that creationists can explain the origin of the universe, evolutionists cannot; creationists can explain the origin of life, evolutionists cannot; creationists can explain the why there are no transitional fossils, evolutionists cannot; creationists can explain the existence of DNA, evolutionists cannot. In fact the entire purpose of evolution seems to be to explain away rather than to explain.

Our Founders noted that the creation and the Creator are self-evident, but you are smarter than the Founders. You know that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence. By "no evidence" you mean no evidence that will persuade you, since there is abundant evidence. There is so much evidence that it has been given a term: The Anthropic Principle.Yet you will believe in extraterrestrials, for which there is no evidence, a self creating universe, for which there is no evidence, spontaneous generation, which has been disproved, macroevolution, for which there is no evidence, etc, etc, etc. IOW your postmodern belief system is inconsistent, contradictory, and absurd.

Aquinas and others have pointed out many proofs for the existence of God. His Prime Mover argument, for example, has never been refuted. It has been answered, but not refuted. Even science would support the Uncaused Cause argument for science has given us the law of cause and effect. But I suppose you prefer to say that there are effects without causes. That is so unscientific, Narby.

The unscientific position, therefore, is to deny the existence of God.