John, pls don't take 'no response' as indicative of not WANTing to make one, the RULES often thwart me, I send quite a few posts to various threads, and when I get red hot on this one, BINGO I get the 'fizzer' message "sorry...etc"...
Anyway,I seem to have misrepresented my position somewhat. I fully accept and even ADvocate that much of what we 'are' at any given moment is due to the brain chemistry etc. Example, we might fill our minds with porn, and surprise surprise, the next attractive female we see tends to make us think in a rather one track direction. Or, we might fill our minds with Scripture, and the next attractive female we see, tends to bring out more family,romantic and pure responses.

I fully believe that we have a moral/social centre of gravity, which can be pushed this way or that depending on what we feed our psyches.
For this reason, with the one exception of 'intersex' born people, I believe homosexual behavior and desires are deviate and not normal.

But when it comes to 'feeding' our inner self and our brain, there is one more aspect which tends to point to what we call our 'fallen nature' and that is the usual desire to take the line of least resistance and pander to our baser desires. Our WILL. We are informed enough to know what is right and wrong in our society, so what 'is' it which causes so many to 'tend' to go against it for personal gratification or advantage ? Perhaps this is why the commandments are couched in 'do not' language rather than 'do'.

John, about the supernatural. Our dilemna is that of the blind man, who Jesus is 'reported' to have healed. He was asked by the religious authorities "Who healed you" ? He said "As for who he is, I don't know, but once I was blind, and now I see" See John 9 for the details.
One degree of separation from the event, will not convince a determined skeptic. But hey, its now 2005 from....? :)

The thinking disbelievers are more true to the cosmic reality than any head banging slave to the Bible or Koran.We will accept the joys of life and the finality of death and still be responsible,ethical citizens.We will have an open mind to all the cosmic laws and realities that confront us and will accept our mortality.We will only pay homage to the religion of science and logic,that which gives us freedom of thought and more control of our destinies.
The way to a higher plane of consciousness is cold hard logic and the test of science.The true believers of logic and hardnosed reality gave us the time to indulge ourselves in thought at this moment in time,rather than the reality of survival in some cold cave where there is no time for thinking or family interaction.

Boaz
Look for the Dome of The rock and Mohammed.
But again the eyewitness account could be the same as the Christian account of the Resurrection claims of eyewitness accounts where there were none, especially when most of the NT was written decades after and most likely not by any of the apostles. Easy to put word in anyones mouth after the event.

Again even other Christians realize that that Creation Science is bunk and that the Bible cannot be used as an accurate historical document. At least they have some credibility.

I won’t get into a line by line debate with you over it the same as I won’t debate about Evolution.
There is even a bunch of fundies that want us to go back to the Earth centred solar system. Why not go with the flat earth as well?

No point discussing it with them or you on a factual basis as by backing something like Creation Science it shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method and the interdisciplinary nature of science or that you are incapable of changing your mind when presented with substantive evidence.

I’d rather see you dodge something like why your ‘God’ is a war criminal, mass murderer and why –my favorite- it condoned and encouraged slavery? Read your OT again.

Ambo, Arjay, Mollydukes
In the past, if someone was faced with an unknown they often developed theories that could include such things as dragons, witches, fairies, etc.

If a modern scientist is faced with an unknown, they will usually develop theories also, and while these theories may not contain dragons, witches etc, the majority of these theories will not be found to be accurate upon follow up testing or scientific research (ie there are many more scientific theories rejected than accepted)

Scientific research will always contain a statistical “degree of error”. This always occurs because of the varying inaccuracies that are intrinsically contained within any sampling, the research equipment being used, or the research procedures that are being carried out.

Accuracy or reliability of scientific research can be improved by providing more resources to a research project, but this often means cutting back on the resources that were being provided to another research project. So the accuracy or reliability of scientific research is often not limited by human intellect, but by the availability of resources such as time, money and personnel.

There can also be “advocacy research” whereby biased or corrupted researches will try and produce results that meet the expectations of the persons providing the money for that research.

So overall:- much in science is eventually rejected, science contains varying degrees of inaccuracy, and just any science or scientific investigation is not necessarily reliable science or reliable scientific investigation. But don’t just take my word for this, you can verify all of the above by contacting any experienced, unbiased scientific researcher.

Ambo,
I don’t belong to any church or religion, but you seem to infer that I do. What scientific principles were you using to come to your conclusions, and were these reliable scientific principles?

Molydukes,
Please find me feminist texts that contain something other than generalisations, non-substantiated evidence, hypocrisy, or biased and unethical research data and I will begin to believe what you have said regards myself (NB. Many have tried to find those texts, but nearly all have failed to date)

Timkins, in answer to your question why did I infer that you held a religious point of view, well.. your own words "So eventually science can only know so much, and then faith becomes necessary. It would also not be correct to rely totally on science to provide a reason for living either."
If you don't hold a religious perspective and you appear to be rejecting a scientific perspective, just what is the point you are trying to make?

Also no one in this forum is under any obligation to answer your questions when you set rules about how they are to be answered. eg "Ambo,
I don’t belong to any church or religion, but you seem to infer that I do. What scientific principles were you using to come to your conclusions, and were these reliable scientific principles?"

You really provoke people to respond to you in a mocking or sarcastic manner, your questions to not propel the debate and, as I have pointed out to you in other forums you seek to twist the subject matter to you own agenda. At some point you will begin blaming feminists for inaccuracy in scientific reasoning.

I know I am wasting my post and my time with you and this is the final time I will either respond to your post or answer your questions.

The simple facts are these, as warren has eloquently expressed far better than I, that there is solid, material evidence for evolution and no evidence for creation.

Ambo,

Ambo said,
“Thank you for demonstrating quite clearly that those of a religious nature are less evolved than those who seek rational explanations for the world around them.”

I would regard this as an inference that I am a religious person, and it is also an insult by suggesting that I am less evolved.

If you do not wish me to ask you questions of any type, then don’t make inferences regards myself that you latter can’t prove (ie. the very basis of bad science)

I have noticed that although many people have labelled me with many names (ie from misogynist to a GB), not once have these people ever provided substantiated evidence for their claims, and rarely do such people ever reference their general comments to anything else.

On the contrary, I have provided more references to statements I make via easily accessible links than anyone else I believe, and that is a very scientific principle to follow.

Creationist theory has significant flaws, and so do theories such as the Big Bang theory (if one investigates them fully). We will never possibly know for sure what created the universe.

In relation to feminism, I never mentioned it in this forum, Mollydukes brought up the subject first if you care to check back, and also made unsubstantiated comments regards myself (also poor science), and I was responding, but if feminism was a science, then it would have to be near the bottom of the list in terms of reliability, as there is almost no scientific basis for the claims so often made by feminist.