I took it literally to illustrate that it was not well thought out.
How do people cutting you off in traffic provide a test regarding the existence of God? How would God be falsified or have his/her/its existence better established as being likely as a result of someone cutting you off in traffic?
It tries my faith, it does not test the existence of God. But you made a good, decent, honest shift in topic all the same. The discussion was actually about faith in the first place. The little provocative tidbit that got it going was I asked if he had "faith" in the scientific method.
What has this [chairs breaking under AndyTheBear's immensity] to do with God?
It was from an early analogy trying to illustrate what faith is. Good. Then this God and anything that it has allegedly done is not in any way relevant to science, and certainly has no place in a science classroom.
This seems too reckless to be recognized as an argument except by those who want to agree with you. Please calm down and try to enlighten me with a more precise break down of this logic. I think you may find it actually does not follow.
How exactly does a scientist examine evidence for miracles?
No differently then anyone else. Through personal experience. I may have mentioned this is not something that is subject to the scientific method. I believe you were just trying to make something of that above...so why do you ask about scientists in particular? Do you never evaluate evidence outside of science? How do people who are not scientists survive? (golly my hand hurts, its all red and bright around it, do you think its a bad idea to keep it in this fire thingy?)
Science is part of common sense. The idea that you try something out and see if it is so, with rules of being careful about it. Common sense is what most people use in evaluating the world around them. If you don't have faith in common sense, then how can you have faith in science?
False analogy. Darwin's theory makes testable predictions that could potentially fail to pan out, thus falsifying the theory. What testable predictions can be derived from God? How would the existence of a God be falsified?
I am a hard ass when it comes to the definition of the scientific method. Many people have different definitions and argue for them. But usually they do it to include what they are researching and their own methods. Do you not see a problem with that?
I am from old school: repeatable experiments. No repeatable experiment, then no science. One might be right in their conclusion, but one should not be trying to borrow from the credibility that repeatable experiments have earned.
Short term everyday evolution is testable by repeatable experiments.
Long term evolution is not. The further you go back in time, the less direct any repeatable experiment is until you are left simply looking for clues to fit your model, like historians do. I mean no disrespect for historians, nor to people searching for evidence to support evolution. I just do not accept that they are engaged in what gave science its impeccable reputation for accuracy.
So my analogy stands.
So you want to lie to students about dogma (belief in God) by claiming that it is not dogma?
Yes thats it. I consider my faith in God to be dogma and I still want it shoved down the throats of your kids! Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!
Actually I would prefer to let the local schools decide the curriculum without interference from the feds or activist judges or national crusaders. And I don't want children to be afraid of mentioning God, or praying to God in the schools.
If a Biology class mentions the origins of life, they could offer that although most biologist beleive evolution happened, more then just a few disagree. Are the later to be kicked out of biology and suppressed, or ridiculed by lack of mention?