[Rudder]

I do draw the line at teaching things that have not been proven, to be irrefutable fact."Proven" is a tough thing to do in science, for all of us scientists recognize the possibility than there can always be an exception to the "rule."

I accept Christ based upon spiritual faith. Has it been proven that Christ was the son of God? No.

I accept God as an article of spiritual faith. Has it been proven that God exists? No.

Science is not about faith, it is about empricial observations. You're having trouble with that concept.

[DoughtyOne]

No, you're having a hard time accepting that absent proof, the evidence is inconclusive. I do understand the terms you guys would like to limit this to. As I said to another person, I don't blame you.

You know that the evidence is not conclusive. I know the evidence is not conclusive. Why do you folks have such a hard time admitting what we all know?

[Blzbba]

"I accept Christ based upon spiritual faith. Has it been proven that Christ was the son of God? No.

I accept God as an article of spiritual faith. Has it been proven that God exists? No.

Science is not about faith, it is about empricial observations. You're having trouble with that concept."


How refreshing! Someone who gets it and whose faith is NOT threatened by science!