Considering that the Bible never once claims Earth to be unique I find your sarcasm insulting, as a Scientists, considering this is coming from a non-Christian however with how disgusting your Sarcasm is I’d feel no hesitation in “whooping yur bach syde” on the behalf of all Bible thumpers.
Really…assaults against religion using science is pathetic…Science as I have found it more oft than not supports Religion. It doesn’t support creed but it definately denotes there being a God.
For the humor impaired (looks significantly at TBR) this was whats is called a ‘joke’. I have to admit that, after your post, its even more funny now than it was. 
Thanks!!
-XT
I argue about this with people every day (in fact I’m arguing right now with someone who thinks the discovery of a forming solar system has disproved the Bible and consequently God), and it is hard for me to take it as a joke because of that.
There may be some smart Atheists…but I’ve yet to find them…they are all rabid attackers of sacred tradition and have no respect for the past, so this went over my head
Uh, just what does “sacred tradition” and “respect for the past” have to do with critical thinking?
I think there are two unmentioned as yet implications.
However, one possible question that needed to be answered for those “fossils” to be real ‘bugs’ was a wet Mars. We have that.
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/mars/martians/martians1.html
Being as careful as possible and trying desperately to avioid an unavoidable flame war: The announcement this week doesn’t prove anything about either theory. However, as we know, it is legitimate to form a theory and then, be open to letting the scientific evidence disprove it for you. The evidence provided this week has not disproved either theory… who knows what other information the rovers may come up with that may disprove them
Hopefully this won’t devolve into an extensive hijack, but can you quickly explain how?
Well Gex gex…just simply put:
Science is how we view God’s universe, his design…his “being”. We can choose to imagine for ourselves what God did to make the universe (Such as the Great World Tree and the world being formed by a Cow in nordic myth). Or we can learn the truth of what is the Universe//God. Indeed for me I see God and the Universe as one in the same.
I believe God to be as much the creation as much as the creator
And I see Science as the search for Truth.
But if there is a God would it not be wholly truth? Nothing that is God could be false, as that would seem illogical correct? So then why should the search for truth be a disproof of God when it can as much be the proof of God? It could very well be the only way we as physical beings can come to terms with God.
And that’s what I meant by religion without creed.
Science supports religion, it supports the search for God, the search for reason of being and existance and how things work … why they work.
But it doesn’t support any creed over the other, it doesn’t support our actions, it doesn’t say Christianity is right, Islam is wrong.
Collinsc read some Swift…
The_Broken_Column: So, in essence, you argue that since a god was responsible in some way for the universe, and science is our way of understanding the universe, science proves there is a god?
If nothing else, your skill with circular reasoning is exemplary.
However, if we assume that there is no god, which we should do if taking a purely scientific approach (after all, science requires extensive evidence of something before it assumes its existence), then science is simply our means for understanding the universe.