[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The statement does not specifically name and exclude God from science?"

That is in no way the same as saying that God doesn't exist. Is saying that microbes were outside the purview of science before the invention of the microscope the same as saying that microbes don't exist? Of course not. There is no God-o-meter yet; God is outside the purview of science. That is not a declaration that God doesn't exist.

"It will not allow the suggestion that God should be up for consideration in the mix, or any personal entity for that matter."

It's NOT about *allowing* the consideration of God, it's the fact of being unable to make any scientific statements about God. How can a *personal entity* be studied if it isn't subject to tests and observations?

" (Which is kind of strange since science by definition is a personal endeavor.)"

No, it's by definition a social endeavor. You need someone else to test your work, to confirm your conclusions.

"Since science is not able to test the assumption that God is beyond its purview,"

No, you are pulling a bait and switch. It's not that science can test if God is within it's purview, but whether theists can show how God can be examined within science. You have shown no way at all that science can study God, yet you insist that it should anyway. Talk about an unfunded mandate!



"If there's one thing I've never been accused of . . ."

Don't worry, you're not my type. I prefer women. :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

Is saying that microbes were outside the purview of science before the invention of the microscope the same as saying that microbes don't exist?

No. And saying God is outside the purview of science is not the same thing as saying God does not exist. Saying microbes are outside the purview of science is unscientific and "amicrobistic" whether or not we have tools to observe them. So is saying God is outside the purview of science whether or not we have the tools to observe Him (either directly or indirectly).

[Fester Chugabrew]

Don't worry, you're not my type. I prefer women. :)

Is that why you let Patrick Henry put that juicy wet hickey on your sexy maple neck? I'm jealous.

[Elsie]

I prefer women. :)

Seems to be a requirement for specie survival.

I guess the 'gay gene' will breed itself to oblivion some day.