What is religion?
Ever since the dawn of time the leaders of tribes have invented Gods and religions to manipulate and control the tribe with primal fear and superstition, greed and self interest, an estimated 2500 of them, thats what religion is. The leader always being the only one that can see or speak to the God! When the leader goes off to pillage the neighboring tribes because he claims this God has told him to spread the faith, he appoints priests as his middlemen and invents dogma to follow under pain of death, any whim that comes into their heads, they write them down and call it a Holy Book!
Then it is written!
This is just one example of this man made dogma! They tell you what to eat, wear, read even if you can have sex or not (catholic Priests and Nuns), what contraceptives you cannot use, medicines, science, who your enemies are and who to smite out, what people and books to burn. They build churches to control and continue the delusion and schools to divide from, segregate and indoctrinate the children into the various religious brand names, with the most ridiculous lies ever invented, they even use our taxes to do it in this country, illegal any where else.
But it all comes down to whether or not your prepared to resist and stand up for what is the true meaning of life, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION! Will you go silently off into the night and allow the religious cults to oppress you, that is the question for all religiously oppressed people. There is an atheist convention in Melbourne in March, get involved or stay oppressed? This country is moving closer every year to becoming a theocracy just like Iran. Have a read of Marion Maddox's book, "God under Howard the rise of the religious right in Australian politics", the coalition parties are completely controlled by the religious right, every institute, society and foundation!

If you want to see how the Christian religion and most other religions were invented go to. "Truth be known" or U TUBE, "Zeitgeist religion"!

HFR is spot on.

Check out this site to see how they squeeze tax money for their priests to go into public schools and spread their brand of belief under the guise of 'helping' the students:
http://www.australiansecularlobby.com/index.html

See this one which explains why Queensland is such a backward place still:
http://www.thefourthr.info/

"Until this happens, the discussions will indeed be separate"
Oops.
As Pericles pointed out, you appear to have answered your own question, Dan.

AJ,
Thanks for the welcome back, except that I didn’t realise that I’d gone anywhere.

You consider eye witness observation relatively unreliable. So can I ask, which was more reliable in arriving at the truth in the matter of the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, the eyewitness accounts of the people who were there on the night or the chemical laboratories that got involved?

Colinsett,
With time machines, I was referring to time travel, which is a concept of science fiction (have you seen the Eric Bana movie, the Time Traveller’s Wife?) I wasn’t referring to clocks, sophisticated or otherwise, that measure elapsed time.

The question I was raising was ‘standard of proof’. When do we declare that something is proven?

Dear Pericles,
Dealing with specifics is fine, but I’m getting a bit bored with the colourful adjectives (sly, sleight of hand, etc.) that seem intent on denigration rather than constructive comment, and won’t be responding to those in future.

You say that, when making scientific examinations, all scientists will leave their religious beliefs - if any - at the door. If we’re going to be fair, I think we might include non-religious beliefs also? Yet I’m not sure how that is exactly possible. Our beliefs form part of our thinking process, and are implicated into our preconceptions and theorising. My assertion is that the concept of a higher intelligence was integrated into Newton’s thinking. And not only Newton’s but many of the pioneers of what we call Western science.

Therefore, we should not feel compelled to relegate the idea of higher intelligence to a place outside of science, or ‘leave it at the door’, so to speak. Newton evidently didn’t.

So we concentrate on the observable facts before us, and allow for all possibilities. And if the evidence points to a young earth or and old earth, then so be it. This is where a debate could begin. (And by the way, from your requirement that only geologists who have expertise in interpreting rocks may be involved, neither Dawkins nor Wieland qualifies.)

Dan,

Thanks for your response, but you’ve conveniently skimmed over my point about the scientific method, which rendered the rest or your post null, void and irrelevant.

<<You consider eye witness observation relatively unreliable.>>

More so any expert on the matter. Never mind me.

<<So can I ask, which was more reliable in arriving at the truth in the matter of the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, the eyewitness accounts of the people who were there on the night or the chemical laboratories that got involved>>

A few points...

Firstly, you’ll find rare exceptions to most scenarios, but rare exceptions bare little weight in comparison to the overwhelming majority of cases.

Secondly, in comparison to the overwhelming evidence for evolution, the scientific evidence in the Chamberlain case was so scant it was just about non-existent.

And thirdly, there was much more to the conviction than the chemical evidence. Media bias played a major part in influencing the verdict.

But before you mention any biases with scientists, remember that the scientific method real scientists adhere to ensures that biases don’t play a part in any interpretation by requiring that scientists exhaust all attempts to contradict the data. Unlike Creation “scientists” who have statements of faith proclaiming that all evidence that contradicts the Bible must be disregarded:

“6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.” (http://creation.com/what-we-believe)

So your ‘Azaria Chamberlain’ example, as well as your frequently mentioned paradigm claim (which I have discredited numerous times before), are both irrelevant.

I hope this also covers the following addressed to Pericles...

<<You [Pericles] say that, when making scientific examinations, all scientists will leave their religious beliefs - if any - at the door. If we’re going to be fair, I think we might include non-religious beliefs also? Yet I’m not sure how that is exactly possible...>>

Answer?

The scientific method.

Continued...