GGniner Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:........the Capital is full of Free Exercise, while its being trampled on elswhere in the country. Judeo-Christian heritage, 52 of the 55 founders(Constitution signers) were Creationist Christians.

Darwin was still 100's of years away.

Times change. Ignorance lessens. Science expands.

so, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution that you are taking literally as to how to prosecute war on terror and other things Ron Paul is posturing himself on, are also "ignorant".....their view of having a "Creator" who "gives inalienable rights"(and by virtue tons of meaning to our lives) is simply ignorant. Why that means then that Humans(see Humanist) give rights to us sheeple and that means humans can take those rights away.

Darwinism is not science either, its anti-science. Science states plainly that you can not get life from non-life and order from chaos. There would be no modern science as we know it, without the Christian Worldview that is in the model(see presuppositions that Discovered the Scientific Method by a creationist), of which all modern science stems from. It is absolutely impossible with a Darwinist/godless world view and presuppositions of pure chance with no meaning, everything is constantly evolving, etc.... to have modern science(discover the Scientific Method).

Their faith has exactly nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution should be followed because it's the document by which this country was setup and intended to be ran with. It's similar to a contract. If I sign a contract with you, I don't get to ad-lib whenever I want just to do something I want to do. I have to amend the contract if I want to do something it doesn't allow me to. Our current federal government has completely ignored the constitution. The Executive Branch has destroyed the balance of power and system of checks and balances. The insanity has to stop... and that's part of the reason why I support Ron Paul. Our rights are given as equals by humans. If you don't think those rights can be thusly taken away by humans, I encourage you to move to China sometime, or read accounts of holocaust victims.

Not only can life come into existence, but it has been scientifically proven. It's called the Miller-Urey Experiment ... research it some time. Furthermore, Darwinian natural selection is the EXACT OPPOSITE of pure chance. And to assert that there would be no science without Christianity is absurd. First off, science and religion are mutually exclusive by their very definition. If you want to argue with a dictionary, go ahead, but don't be surprised when I mock you. Secondly, religion has tried very hard in years past and present to subvert science. If religion dictated science, the world would still be flat, and you'd still be burned at the stake for saying otherwise you witch. And then there's the current movement to force the teaching of "intelligent design" in school, which is a mockery of everything that education and science stand for.

Man you're really naive.

GGniner Wrote:check out the discoveries in modern science and guess what the worldview was of these Scientist, one of which I've mentioned:

Quote:

The Scientific Method - Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle
Antiseptic Surgery - Joseph Lister
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur
Calculus - Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics - Johannes Kepler
Chemistry - Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics - Isaac Newton
Electronics - John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday
Energetics - Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre
Field Theory - James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy - Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle
Genetics - Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology - James Simpson
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsey
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Natural History - John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernard Riemann
Oceanography - Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster
Logarithms - John Napier
You name it, he did it - Leonhard Euler

all Creationist beleivers, all heavily influenced by what took place in the Reformation in the 16th century

Does anyone not find it telling that other religions weren't able to produce these discoveries that have drastically altered our lives.......the above discoveries are true Truth.

Quote:1 Thes 5:21 (NIV) "Test everything. Hold onto the good."

John 16:12-13 (NIV) "I [Jesus] have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

the list is long....

Luther was the first to translate the Bible and distribute it to common people, the rest is history.

Now eliminate everybody born before Darwin published his Origin of Species. And that's being slightly unfair, because it didn't catch on immediately after it was published. Albert Einstein first equated matter and energy. And oh my -- he existed well after the Origin of Species was published. Oh yea - he was an atheist.

Quote:"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are just details." ---Albert Einstein

He admitted later in life there had to be a creator which shows he was a smart guy since mathematics proves it. Infinite creator, finite creation...

Darwinism is not what I'm trying to get into here though, my point is the Scientific Method which all modern science comes from, is only in existence because of Christian pressupositions about the universe. And the discovery of it and all modern science that follows just so happened to coincide with the aftermath of the reformation by luther and calvin, and the word of God finally making its way into the hands of everyone instead of being told that only certian people in the Church are allowed to read it and you must learn through them. Atheist scientist today are living off the capital of this and everything it produced, everytime they use the Scientific method to try and discover Science.

the other point, is we would not have the United States and the Constitution as we know it without a creationist worldview with which the founders held.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:But from a logical standpoint, if your major premise is merely that there is only one God, then it is possible to get to Soph's point that religion A's teachings could be just as reasonable as religion non-A's (as long as neither of them is anti-God of course).

I disagree.

For example Christianity is more than just "there is a God." It's that there is a God, He has a son who He sent to die on a cross for our sins. And that only through His son can we be granted the grace necessary to spend eternity with God. We'll call that A.

Islam doesn't recognize the diety of Christ, nor does Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism or virtually any other "ism" out there. Those are non-A.

Both cannot be true. If Christianity states that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, and Islam teaches that he is not, then one is right, one is wrong from a religious standpoint. You simply can't say, "Well both could be true" when one argues A and the other argues non-A.

The issue isn't as you stated, is another religion's teachings reasonable, it's are they true. If Jesus is the only way to eternal life, then Islam cannot be true. If He is not, then Christianity is wrong.

That's why the idea that all paths lead to God can't work.

I believe you are making an argument of faith rather than logic (that only one of A and non-A can be true), because these concepts are equivocal. Eternal life to Christians may or may not be the same as Enlightenment for Buddhists. We have no way of knowing, only faith that each of our next levels of existence (for lack of a better expression) will occur if we do as we are taught by our respective faiths. If your premise requires Jesus Christ as Savior, you have drastically narrowed the argument. Without a very narrow premise, I don't know how you would use logic to rule out all religions except one (even if you do not state that one).

GGniner Wrote:

Quote:"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are just details." ---Albert Einstein

He admitted later in life there had to be a creator which shows he was a smart guy since mathematics proves it. Infinite creator, finite creation...

Darwinism is not what I'm trying to get into here though, my point is the Scientific Method which all modern science comes from, is only in existence because of Christian pressupositions about the universe. And the discovery of it and all modern science that follows just so happened to coincide with the aftermath of the reformation by luther and calvin, and the word of God finally making its way into the hands of everyone instead of being told that only certian people in the Church are allowed to read it and you must learn through them. Atheist scientist today are living off the capital of this and everything it produced, everytime they use the Scientific method to try and discover Science.

the other point, is we would not have the United States and the Constitution as we know it without a creationist worldview with which the founders held.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
- Albert Einstein

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

I invoke "God" at random when I speak ... but I assure you I don't believe in one. But feel free to quote when I have as evidence I do believe in God, if it makes you feel better. It just won't make it true.

Your assertions that science owes anything to, or was built up with the aid of, religion .... is outright ludicrous, for reasons I've already posted in this thread.

Brookes Owl Wrote:I believe you are making an argument of faith rather than logic (that only one of A and non-A can be true), because these concepts are equivocal.

All religions are matters of faith brookes. And if we're engaging in a discussion on religion then faith has to be an accepted variable in the discussion. To rule out faith is to make the discussion pointless.

Quote:Eternal life to Christians may or may not be the same as Enlightenment for Buddhists.

It's not the same at all.

Quote:We have no way of knowing, only faith that each of our next levels of existence (for lack of a better expression) will occur if we do as we are taught by our respective faiths.

I believe you are still missing the point. If one religion says A is the way to spend eternity with God, and another says non-A is the only way to spend eternity with God, they cannot both be right. It simply can't be, and every rule of logic dictates that.

Quote:If your premise requires Jesus Christ as Savior, you have drastically narrowed the argument.

Brookes Jesus Christ is required if you're talking about Christianity. We're not talking theism, we're talking specific religions with specific doctrines and beliefs. The most central of which are polar opposites.

Everything can't be right Brookes, that in and of itself is a logical impossibility. You can't lay out all the characteristics of an apple, right down to its seeds, then have someone stick an orange in front of you, call it an apple and them be right.

Quote:Without a very narrow premise, I don't know how you would use logic to rule out all religions except one (even if you do not state that one).

To accept that all are right it so accept something that is logically impossible. Everything can't be right. Both A and non-A cannot be true.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

Quote:"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are just details." ---Albert Einstein

He admitted later in life there had to be a creator which shows he was a smart guy since mathematics proves it. Infinite creator, finite creation...

Darwinism is not what I'm trying to get into here though, my point is the Scientific Method which all modern science comes from, is only in existence because of Christian pressupositions about the universe. And the discovery of it and all modern science that follows just so happened to coincide with the aftermath of the reformation by luther and calvin, and the word of God finally making its way into the hands of everyone instead of being told that only certian people in the Church are allowed to read it and you must learn through them. Atheist scientist today are living off the capital of this and everything it produced, everytime they use the Scientific method to try and discover Science.

the other point, is we would not have the United States and the Constitution as we know it without a creationist worldview with which the founders held.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
- Albert Einstein

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

I invoke "God" at random when I speak ... but I assure you I don't believe in one. But feel free to quote when I have as evidence I do believe in God, if it makes you feel better. It just won't make it true.

Your assertions that science owes anything to, or was built up with the aid of, religion .... is outright ludicrous, for reasons I've already posted in this thread.

umm, okay. All I did was show that Einstein was not an atheist and acknowledged there had to be a Creator God. not that he beleived in a personal Creator God, just that he acknowledged their had to be a creator. i.e. not pure atheist

he proved he wasn't a beleiver in a personal God with this quote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

he couldn't get past the idea that if God created how could it not be perfect, i.e. why does man have all these bad things happen to him, etc. an answer for which he never sought..........from your link btw:

Quote:Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

and if any scientist is using the Scientific Method he's working off Christian pressupositions. How would modern Science be possible without the discovery of the Scientific Method?

Quote:Hindus are a part of our country, and thus have a right to be recognized.

And the best way for a CHRISTIAN to recognize a Hindu is to pray to their CHRISTIAN God for them. Does it REALLY make sense to pray to someone or something that you don't believe in? I'm not claiming Christians are the only correct ones... or even correct at all... but praying to a God you honestly don't believe in is worse than pointless... it's an insult to that God. Even if all "Gods" are in reality the same thing (the common end to all paths) just about every religion claims that THEIR God is the one and true... so if you BELIEVE you are praying to a different God, you are a blasphemer.

GGniner Wrote:and if any scientist is using the Scientific Method he's working off Christian pressupositions. How would modern Science be possible without the discovery of the Scientific Method?

The scientific methods owes nothing to Christianity and is not in and of itself Christian. I don't care if the pope wrote it. For you to convince me that the scientific method is in and of itself christian, lightning would have to carve the scientific method into the side of a mountain.

What you're saying is akin to this:
If I were muslim and I created NCAAbbs, you'd owe something to the muslim religion and all things based off of NCAAbbs would be equally owing to the muslim religion.

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:But from a logical standpoint, if your major premise is merely that there is only one God, then it is possible to get to Soph's point that religion A's teachings could be just as reasonable as religion non-A's (as long as neither of them is anti-God of course).

I disagree.

For example Christianity is more than just "there is a God." It's that there is a God, He has a son who He sent to die on a cross for our sins. And that only through His son can we be granted the grace necessary to spend eternity with God. We'll call that A.

Islam doesn't recognize the diety of Christ, nor does Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism or virtually any other "ism" out there. Those are non-A.

Both cannot be true. If Christianity states that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, and Islam teaches that he is not, then one is right, one is wrong from a religious standpoint. You simply can't say, "Well both could be true" when one argues A and the other argues non-A.

The issue isn't as you stated, is another religion's teachings reasonable, it's are they true. If Jesus is the only way to eternal life, then Islam cannot be true. If He is not, then Christianity is wrong.

That's why the idea that all paths lead to God can't work.

I believe you are making an argument of faith rather than logic (that only one of A and non-A can be true), because these concepts are equivocal. Eternal life to Christians may or may not be the same as Enlightenment for Buddhists. We have no way of knowing, only faith that each of our next levels of existence (for lack of a better expression) will occur if we do as we are taught by our respective faiths. If your premise requires Jesus Christ as Savior, you have drastically narrowed the argument. Without a very narrow premise, I don't know how you would use logic to rule out all religions except one (even if you do not state that one).

But isn't that exactly what you have to do if you decide to follow the tenets of a certain religion? If you have decided to follow a Buddhist path, how then would you reach enlightenment by following the instructions called out in the Koran, Bible or Torah? You would have to follow all instructions called out in your religion in order to get to that "higher enlightenment" (as you called it).

I agree with your statement, if you are taking a scientific approach with no preconceived notions, but if you are already religious, how do you do that? At that point you have already made a decision. This question came about from Sophandros calling out people for "arrogantly" assuming their faith is correct, while all others are invalid. Therefore, he has already made the assumption that these are people of faith.

If you choose Christians, their Bible says

Quote:John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

On this verse alone and if you believe in the Christian faith, don't you immediately have to throw out Hinduism, et.al. with multiple gods?

Then also don't you have to throw out the Jewish faith as Jesus is not involved.

Basically on this verse alone, you are down to only Islam and Christianity (because both mention Jesus and God (Allah)) and that is just one verse.

Again, I am not here to make an argument for one faith or another, only that if you are a believer in one faith you have to inherently believe that your faith is better than all others or you would not be a believer in that religion.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:and if any scientist is using the Scientific Method he's working off Christian pressupositions. How would modern Science be possible without the discovery of the Scientific Method?

The scientific methods owes nothing to Christianity and is not in and of itself Christian. I don't care if the pope wrote it. For you to convince me that the scientific method is in and of itself christian, lightning would have to carve the scientific method into the side of a mountain.

What you're saying is akin to this:
If I were muslim and I created NCAAbbs, you'd owe something to the muslim religion and all things based off of NCAAbbs would be equally owing to the muslim religion.

ok, how is Science(from the Scientific Method) possible if your worldview says that everything is here by pure chance and randomness, etc. If everything was always evovling why aren't the laws of Logic and Science not evolving? Christians have the presupposition that the world/universe is uniform and therefore science is possible. So it does not have the atheist problem for 2 reasons:

- God sovereignly controls the universe to make science possible.
- He commands us to think like Him which is logical.

And this is the pressupositions that Sir Francis Bacon had that guided him to his discovery of the Scientific Method....read Psalm 19
from which all real scientist are working from today.

Science does not claim that all things are random, in fact, says quite the opposite. These are called laws of nature. Planetary motion is not random; planets move due to gravity, and in precise ways. If everything was random then nothing could be repeated, which again, is a basis for scientific acceptance of theory. The scientific method of forming hypothesis, and testing with experimentation was practiced long before mention of a Jewish messiah.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Logic says, by virture of the precepts various religions teach, that they can't all be true. Logic is a matter of true or false. Logic says that if one religion teaches A, and one religion teaches non-A, then both can't be true, thus equal. Therefore logic would then tell us that embracing all religions as valid simply can't be, because all religions can't be true.

Just to clarify for Blah and Ninerfan: I'm not trying to say that all faiths are correct, or even that they could be correct. I'm only responding to Ninerfan's (in my opinion, incorrect) claim that LOGIC dictates all religions can't be true. Whether or not any of them are true, logic will not give us the answer. The equivocal nature of faith makes it difficult if not impossible to designate an indisputable truth (even if you don't know exactly what that truth is - only that it exists). Without an indisputable truth I can't imagine how you can invoke the rules of logic.

Brookes Owl Wrote:We have no way of knowing, only faith that each of our next levels of existence (for lack of a better expression) will occur if we do as we are taught by our respective faiths.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I believe you are still missing the point. If one religion says A is the way to spend eternity with God, and another says non-A is the only way to spend eternity with God, they cannot both be right. It simply can't be, and every rule of logic dictates that.

While it's a reasonable argument, I can think of no rules of logic that dictate it. One of Soph's points was that God could be offering different groups of people different ways to reach Him (this is why I gave my example of Christianity and Buddhism). We don't have to agree with this but it does provide a logical premise. And I don't believe you can argue the counterpoint without invoking faith. Again, that's ok with me but it's still not logic.

Brookes Owl Wrote:Whether or not any of them are true, logic will not give us the answer.

Very true. However what it will tells us is that, based on what they teach, they can't all be true. Never once did I say logic will tell us which religion is true, because it won't. What it will tell us is that all cannot be true.

If you accept for the purposes of discussion that there is a God, and you accept for the purposes of discussion that He has, in some form or fashion, handed down his precepts to man, then that leads you to the discussion of which form is the correct one? Then you look at what they teach, and when one teaches A, and another teaches non-A, then logic will dictate one of them is incorrect.

Quote:The equivocal nature of faith makes it difficult if not impossible to designate an indisputable truth (even if you don't know exactly what that truth is - only that it exists). Without an indisputable truth I can't imagine how you can invoke the rules of logic.

I'm not talking about religion per-say. My comments aren't concerned with if blowing yourself up will truly get you 73 virgins or if a cow is an ancestor. What I'm saying is that it is not arrogance that brings a person to the conclusion that their religion is the correct one. It's not arrogance to say all religions can't all be true, it's logic.

Quote:While it's a reasonable argument, I can think of no rules of logic that dictate it.

You know of no rule of logic that states something can't be A and non-A at the same time?

Quote:One of Soph's points was that God could be offering different groups of people different ways to reach Him (this is why I gave my example of Christianity and Buddhism). We don't have to agree with this but it does provide a logical premise.

I would actually disagree here. It is not logical to say that God would give various paths to reach him, yet tell many of those paths He can't be reached any other way but by them. Christianity is not the only religion that says there is but one path to eternity with God.

Quote:And I don't believe you can argue the counterpoint without invoking faith. Again, that's ok with me but it's still not logic.

You can easily, and logically, argue the counterpoint, as I just did above. And no faith is required.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:It is not logical to say that God would give various paths to reach him, yet tell many of those paths He can't be reached any other way but by them. Christianity is not the only religion that says there is but one path to eternity with God.

What you write makes sense to you (and many others - in fact it's a great point), but just does not invoke logic. You must have a truth in your premise and you do not. God giving conflicting messages to His children may not make sense to us, and it certainly conflicts with the Bible and many other religious doctrines, but you cannot build a logic-based argument to refute it. You can only argue with faith.

I know, I know, we're probably at the end of our rope here. I've made it a semantic argument. Cheers.

Brookes Owl Wrote:What you write makes sense to you (and many others - in fact it's a great point), but just does not invoke logic. You must have a truth in your premise and you do not. God giving conflicting messages to His children may not make sense to us, and it certainly conflicts with the Bible and many other religious doctrines, but you cannot build a logic-based argument to refute it. You can only argue with faith.

I understand the point you're making, any many respects I agree with you.

I think of it this way. If I'm the only one who knows how to build a house, and I have 10 or 20 people that I have to give that information to because it's important to me that houses get built. Is it logical to think that I would tell 3 or 4 people that following A,B and C is the only way to build a house. And then I tell another 4 or 5 that non-A, non-B and non-C are the only way to build a house. Is it logical to assume that both will be able to build a house? If it's important to me that houses get built, why would I tell one set of people one way, another set of people another way while at the same time telling them that there is no other way to do it?

It's a flawed analogy I know, but it's the best I can do on short notice.

Quote:I know, I know, we're probably at the end of our rope here. I've made it a semantic argument. Cheers.

Yeah probably, but I enjoyed the conversation none the less.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:One of Soph's points was that God could be offering different groups of people different ways to reach Him (this is why I gave my example of Christianity and Buddhism). We don't have to agree with this but it does provide a logical premise.

I would actually disagree here. It is not logical to say that God would give various paths to reach him, yet tell many of those paths He can't be reached any other way but by them. Christianity is not the only religion that says there is but one path to eternity with God.

Cue Douglas Adams...

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Logic says, by virture of the precepts various religions teach, that they can't all be true. Logic is a matter of true or false. Logic says that if one religion teaches A, and one religion teaches non-A, then both can't be true, thus equal. Therefore logic would then tell us that embracing all religions as valid simply can't be, because all religions can't be true.

Just to clarify for Blah and Ninerfan: I'm not trying to say that all faiths are correct, or even that they could be correct. I'm only responding to Ninerfan's (in my opinion, incorrect) claim that LOGIC dictates all religions can't be true. Whether or not any of them are true, logic will not give us the answer. The equivocal nature of faith makes it difficult if not impossible to designate an indisputable truth (even if you don't know exactly what that truth is - only that it exists). Without an indisputable truth I can't imagine how you can invoke the rules of logic.

Brookes Owl Wrote:We have no way of knowing, only faith that each of our next levels of existence (for lack of a better expression) will occur if we do as we are taught by our respective faiths.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I believe you are still missing the point. If one religion says A is the way to spend eternity with God, and another says non-A is the only way to spend eternity with God, they cannot both be right. It simply can't be, and every rule of logic dictates that.

While it's a reasonable argument, I can think of no rules of logic that dictate it. One of Soph's points was that God could be offering different groups of people different ways to reach Him (this is why I gave my example of Christianity and Buddhism). We don't have to agree with this but it does provide a logical premise. And I don't believe you can argue the counterpoint without invoking faith. Again, that's ok with me but it's still not logic.

Alright, I got you now. And I do agree. From a scientific standpoint you can definitely argue that and would have a hard arguing against it.

I was going off of Soph's original claim which was that it is arrogant to assume your religion is correct and all others are not, which to me does not make any sense, logically.

Fanatical Wrote:Science does not claim that all things are random, in fact, says quite the opposite. These are called laws of nature. Planetary motion is not random; planets move due to gravity, and in precise ways. If everything was random then nothing could be repeated, which again, is a basis for scientific acceptance of theory. The scientific method of forming hypothesis, and testing with experimentation was practiced long before mention of a Jewish messiah.

The Miller-Urey Experient and Darwinian Natural Selection are the precise OPPOSITE of pure chance.

You can take your science and shove it, I'm a Christian warrior.