Runner,

"He (Man) thinks he can have sex with who he wants, mock his Creator as he pleases, murder the unborn and play god himself." -R

According to the Bible, the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit. In order to sin against the Holy Spirit, one needs to first believe in God.

If Man is made in God's image and Man is wrong to create life (in a test tube) or the early universe (in particle accellerator). How is God justified in creating Life and a Universe. We are in His image and following His example.

If God is wrong in creating the Universe with the cruelty of the insect world and the Man, who sins. Surely, if that God exists, there are ideal forms of high morality transending God's (im)morlaity.

It doesn't follow, because an Enity is a Creator, said Creator is moral. Would you create Satan?

Trav,

<”However, I do look forward to hearing any evidence you've got to back up your claim. My mind isn't closed, so go right ahead”>

The evidence I use is cultural history, the roman empire was at it's largest, so was communism and just about every invasive culture and ideology the planet has suffered. Look at the reality of our sociological existence, you'll find most organisations collapse when they are at their biggest and most perceived successful state.

Sure the Abrahamic religions are spreading around the world, but wherever they go doesn't see an improvement in peace, security or freedoms, suppression is getting worse worldwide. As religion struggles under the weight of truth which is unravelling it's control, we see many spreading conflicts involving religious states, cultures and factions.

Science and religion are incompatible, science is an investigative changing process, whilst religion is a forced, stagnant acceptance. There's no argument when you look at the real facts. Trying to put religion on a par with science is quite childish, logic shows they are incompatible opposites, one science, reasoned logic, the other religion, illogical illusion.

Science and Religion are generally incompatible by virtue of very opposite natures. One seeks to inquire the other to accept.

I tend to agree with the author regarding religion and conflict. Religion really just adds another log on the fire where there is already disunity for other, mainly economic, disparities.

Religion attempts to be inclusive but it is doomed to fail in the face of too many doctrines. To choose one religious doctrine over another is in effect making a statement that the other is wrong. Not a great way to foster conducive relationships in the face of other challenges.

Of course religion and science can be compatible in those arenas that don't tamper with Creationist viewpoints such as investigations into the origins of man. Other scientific discoveries or ingenuity such as the invention of the wheel, microbiology, treatment of cancer, medical and other advancements may even be in sync with the altruistic goals of some religions.

Oh dear, runner and co why am I not surprised

under one god,

Many of the enzymes and proteins we use have high similarity to those in the cells of a banana, however to find a common ancestor you may have to go back to the evolution of single celled organisms. I can understand that you may think this theory is "insane". It is hard for the closed mind to comprehend. It must be easier for you to accept that a magic invisible being made them appear from thin air.

I think before you comment you should do some research into the things you say, for almost every sentence you write is either your opinion or incorrect information stated as fact. "we see a living/sperm go into a dead egg" Eggs are as alive as any other cell in our body.

You may like to read about artificial speciation, whereby new species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry. In the experiments by William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies from the same species under differing conditions. After 35 generations fruit flies which had been bred under one condition were unable to breed with flies from another, thus formed two distinct species which had originally been one. This experiment contradicts your previous arguments that one species do not arise from another. You can even replicate this experiment yourself if you must see to believe. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/284831

Yes, here we go again.

Runner's provided the most entertainment so far, I reckon :)

Hilarious.