Dear AdamD,
I have said before I have ruled out aliens.
Please tell me another theory. Otherwise, I shall stick with Creationism or Evolution.
I cannot repeat over and over, all your so-called "overwhelming amount of scientifically verifiable evidence", when carefully examined, are not evidence/proof at all. No, not one of them.
OUG has comprehensively dealt with you all on that. But you guys keep coming back like a broken record.
.
.

CJMorgan,
Whether you like it or not, I have provided objective evidence, independently verifiable by others, WITHIN MY LIMITS, (ie. a limitation that I cannot yet replicate that experience).
I merely stated a fact, a fact about my past experience. That cannot be a lie.

On Jesus versus Mohammed, have you forgotten:-
(a)...I never claim a miracle is true, can be proven, or I intend to prove it.
(b)...I never told anyone to believe a religion
That's why I never provided evidence to prove veracity of Biblical miracles. I don't need to...It's completely irrelevant.
(c)...I tell people NOT to believe religion Islam
That's why I provided reasons why Mohammed was a liar.

Since you challenged (c) and also challenged about Jesus, the onus is on you, NOT to prove Jesus is a hoax, but at least LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD by arguing why Jesus stories are EQUALLY IMAGINARY as Mohammed's lies.
You failed to do that in 2007 and you are obviously unable to that, even today. So my challenge to you still stand.

Now...please:-
(1)...analytically explain a few reasons why Jesus stories are EQUALLY IMAGINARY as Mohammed's lies.
(2)...provide TWO EVIDENCE on evolution, within the narrow bounds of your scientific knowledge.

In additional,
(3)...provide evidence that MY CLAIM about my past "Ouija" experience is actually a LIE.

Above are challenges that are very fair, because they have emerged as a direct consequence of your belief system.

Failure to meet my challenges will reveal your futility and foolishness!!

BB,

I think there is just a bit of a mix-up in terms, which is why I posted above.

The Danish naturalist Nicholas Steno indeed converted to Catholicism in the later years of his life - but he was around in the mid-Seventeenth century - the Early Modern period -(you'd have to look up dates).

Giovanni Riccioli is the earliest but, as he was born in 1598 he is usually regarded as an Early Modern too. I've never heard of him being called the "father" of astronomy as I've always thought that he based his work on Kepler and Copernicus and that much of it was flawed - but then Astronomy per se is not my field.I do know, however, that he and someone else (can't remember who) produced a lunar map.

As to Boscovich - well, he was an 18th century Jesuit - almost a contemporary in terms of history.

So in a way you are both right: these three people were indeed part of the priesthood, as Webby says, but BB is correct in that they didn't contribute to any scientific revolution in either the so-called Dark Ages or the Medieval period.

Most students of history regard the period of the Church's rule across England, Europe and The Continent as remarkable for its artistic endeavours as I mentioned before.

hi again, romany

i forgot before to thank you for your first "interruption", and thanks now for the further details.

"So in a way you are both right: these three people were indeed part of the priesthood"

no, i'm sorry but i don't see how the information you've provided supports webby's claim whatsoever, at least to the extent that he was responding to david's (my?) question. ditto OUG's example of mendel.

i don't for a minute deny that devout christians can also be great scientists. at least not in the (extended) modern era. the question is, how did science and mathematics fare when european society, law and education was christian dominated?

i'm also not doubting that there was great thought and great art during this period. but i do doubt that there was great science and maths. and if true, and especially if other areas of human creativity (eventually) flourished, it certainly is reasonable to ask why.

ADAMD>>May I remind you that a theory is the highest order a scientific hypothesis can obtain.>>

lol define hypo-thesis ;hypothesis

A tentative explanation for an observation,of a phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.{LOL}

The antecedent of a;'conditional'statement.

conditional on the Web:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:conditional&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

qualified by reservations
imposing or depending on or containing a condition; "conditional acceptance of the terms"; "lent conditional support"; "the conditional sale will not be complete until the full purchase price is paid"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A statement that depends on a condition being true or false; The conditional mood; A statement that one sentence is true if another is ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conditional

conditionally - under specified conditions
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conditionally

A construct much like that used in C that allows a makefile to be configured on the fly based on the local environment, or on what is being made by that invocation of PMake.
elibrary.fultus.com/technical/topic/com.fultus.freebsd.books/books/pmake/glossary.html

A data element requirement designator, which indicates that the presence of a specified data element is dependent on....continued at link

<<Even gravity is a theory.>>LOL#

>>The term“theory”'is used differently in science terms than it is in every day terms.>>LOL~

>>Even so-called Creation“Scientists”will tell you not to use this argument,as it is invalid>< LOL:LOL:LOL

Dear GZ,

I can understand this must be getting frustrating for you. It’s frustrating for me too when you’re dodging and weaving all over the place. But please do try to keep up.

Somehow, with all the dodging and weaving, we’ve arrived back at abiogenesis and the presumption that there can only be two possibilities – evolution and creationism. This is a false dichotomy. If you can believe that a magical being can start life on Earth, then why not an alien race? The concept of aliens is at least more scientifically plausible. Of course, this doesn’t provide a solution to the question, “Where did the aliens come from?” But neither can religion provide an answer to the question, “Where did god come from?”

Now, you may want to assert that god is eternal. If so, then there is no reason why I can’t assert that physical matter is eternal. After all, science at least shows us that energy can never be destroyed, it only changes forms.

On the subject of evidence, I have already given you one example of why OUG’s posts are misconceptions and debunked claims. OUG most certainly has not dealt with anything. I don’t have to time to go through every point in every one of his/her posts and links, but if you would like to pick out anything from his/her posts that you would like to challenge me with, then be my guest.

You still haven’t given me any evidence for creationism though. Again, could you please supply some? After all, if your powers of logical deduction really do lead you to agree with creationists, then you should be able to demonstrate with some objective evidence. Blind faith is not logical deduction.

Also, if you believe that the evidence for evolution is found not to be evidence when carefully examined, then please give an example.

I await your response.

adamd>>evolution and creationism... is a false dichotomy...If you can believe that a magical being can start life on Earth,..then why not an alien race?>>

what created the alian-'race'...[present evidence]

..<< But neither can religion provide an answer to the question,“Where did god come from?”>>.

HE WAS HERE BEFORE WE WERE
[et-ernal get it?]

omnipresent; omnipotant [cause of causes]
[a logical 'beginning' till science validates it]
or invalidates it

[if you claim invalidate PROVE IT]

>>Now,you may want to assert that god is eternal.<<YES>>If so,then there is no reason why I can’t assert that physical matter is eternal.>>

your quite correct you can ASSERT ANYTHING

but the science says it was created with a HUGE BANG from nothing in an instant
go debate the science[or rebut it]

but science says pre big_bang no time[no_space-time]
AND..no matter only energy...[logical energy]...[LOGUS]

>> After all,science at least shows us that energy can never be destroyed,it only changes forms>>

nor does the logic that gives that energy logical form [lol]

your saying science is wrong thus you need to rebut the science facts
[you just proved if energy is eternal so is energy/logic ie god]

>>OUG most certainly has not dealt with anything...I don’t have to time to go through every point..in every one of his/her posts and links,..but if.."you"would like to pick out"anything"...from his/her posts that you would like to challenge"m"with,...then be my guest>>

interesting if you dont rebut its because you cant rebut...yet still expect others to pick one[so you can not reply them?2]

if you had guts you would challenge me...one to one...[to my face
not by[a possable]proxey set up
[sorry GZ..but this is him and me]

....pick one adam....

>>Blind faith is not logical deduction.<<

...reveal your facts[or rebut mine]

your avoidance is obvious

>>Also,if you believe that ...the evidence for evolution is found..not to be evidence ..when carefully examined,..[then please give an example.]>>

I WOULD LOVE TO..

where is your evidence?

>>I await your response.<<

and I AWAIT YOUR EVIDENCE !