People claim miracles still happen. People claim they talk with God, have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is happening today.

I get it. You don't seem to though. To most people, the claim that you recreated the science so it is true will be no different than me saying God told me to give you $20. When someone is incapable of doing the science for whatever reason, they are left with believing what someone else says. It's not difficult and I understand your rejection of it, But it is the reality we live in.

Sigh.. The high school science teacher (preacher) does not have to prove anything- just dictate from the book. The students (parishioners) have to learn it and accept it in order to get a passing grade and graduate. It all revolves around trusting that what someone else says is true. How is this no different?

And no, the scientific method doesn't make any difference to those who have no ability to check it. You are basically saying that because others will also say it is true, you will believe it to be true. But then we are bombarded with articles about scientific journals printing improper materials and groups of people conspiring to taint peer review. But you trust is it all true. NASA has basically lost the magical incantations to build a Saturn V rocket and yet you can prove it wrong.

Yes, some people, somewhere, might end up with enough knowledge and resources to test something. People also claim to be told to do things by God, to see miracles, that their success is because of a God. For the vast majority of people, there is no difference in mental process. You have faith in science, people have faith in religion, some people have both because they are both tools and used for different purposes.

I don't know if he and any link to anything he has said but project echelon has been around for a while and near as I can tell, records the audio and uses a computer to search for key words. If the key word was found, it was sent to a live person for further review and any actions if necessary. This setup necessarily required recording in order to preserve the calls for review.

There was no discretion in the calls either. The only difference between these claims and Echelon is that echelon used foreign agents to collect US data in order to skirt constitutional issues.

It would probably be easier to have a couple cameras capable of seeing infrared and ultraviolet. You will see the laser on target and can just remove yourself from the area before the trigger is pulled.

To the masses, there is no difference. Even to you, there is likely no difference for the most part. People claim they talk to God all the time, they say God told them to do something. God telling several people to do something is little different to someone who doesn't posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. It's just more people in robes (lab coats) telling them something is true.

) The scientists making the claims have access to particle colliers, arrays of telescopes, etc., with which they CAN AND DO objectively recreate the claims being made.

And the people making the claims in the bible had access to God or so the claim is. People to this day believe God told them to do things.

2) The religious leaders making religious claims have nothing more than dusty old books, with which they CANNOT AND DO NOT recreate the miracles that the books claim, nor do they objectively demonstrate the existence of God.

Dusty old books just like science text books. The science teachers (preachers) rely largely on the exact same principles and your students do too. The point is not that one is right or wrong, it was that the process of dissemination is not much different and the weight you place on it is mooted because few people will ever be able to do the science or invalidate any claims.

So, humans that are alive and working TODAY can demonstrate the claims of science, whereas no living breathing human can demonstrate the claims of religion.

Yes, a small few people can say they can demonstrate the claims of science. The rest of us have to believe what they say. It's not much different.

So section 5 was basically the bills as passed and title 15 section 45 is the act in the US code. Do I have that right?

In that case, they are claiming the entire section 45 as the basis of the illegality which makes some sense. After reading it, I saw several places in which it should apply.

Thanks for the explanation. For a minute there, I thought Amazon would be able to get off on a technicality and the FTC was incompetent or something. Turns out it was just me.

And the exact same thing happens with science. Most people do not posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. They have to take the word for it from some authoritive figure. It is no differnt. The more true something is, the more it might be repeated and hence we are on par with religion again.

Every explaination either becomes turtles all the way down or ends with an i don't know.

Now, i'm not sure a creator is "needed". But it is part of the religion so we got one. Religion doesn't typically search for something to believe, it is told.

No, God did give msn knowlege. Before Adam tasted the apple, God brought all the animals and stuff before him snd told him to name them. He had quite a bit of knowlege before the apple came into play.

Why is that ssme answer that is used to explain the mass for the explosion in the big bang not sufficient to explain a god's existance?

I'll go one better and give you an answer thst ypu cannot refute. We don't know.

You mean just like you? Seriously, thats the most short sided stupid thing anyone could have said given the context.

You do not get to ignore reality in order to impose your own.

They already do this. Check points in Iraq and other countries like Israel are known for being blown up. Buses are more typical because they are enclosed making the blast more effective. The thing is that the death toll usually isn't much higher than a bad car wreck compared to other methods so i think they are targeting the mechanism moreso than what we consider terrorist goals to be. But thats just my limited guess to why they aren't more popular in weatern nations.

Lol.. stop trying to be funny.

We do know that religion (some anyways) holds those principles to be true. The "we know" statemment was clearly qualified by "if we follow the religious examples". Your personal knowlegde of a god or validity of a religious doctrine is completely unimportant to the context. The context is of what people who do belive could understand- not whether they were accurate or not or even convincing.

Please follow along.

Evidently, God failed in giving you reading comprehension and you lack the ability to underdtand simple concepts. Your take on my statement is completely opposite of what was said.