@TheClark: Well put, I have to agree with everything you've said up to this point: "Declaring the non-existence of god or gods is just someone blowing it out their ass - not someone speaking as a scientist."
It all depends on what you mean with god.
As you surely know, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. But sometime the existence of something is so unlikely that we might as well say it doesn't exist. This category would include things like the Loch Ness monster, fairies, zeus, mars (the god), allah, the christian god, invisible pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster.

If of course you want to define god as love or the awe and beauty and working of the universe (sort like Einstein) or even just call the cause of the big bang god then fine, that god would by definition exist.

But as soon as you give god human characteristics (good, vindictive, just) and/or mystical powers like being able to read minds (=hear prayers), punish and reward people and so then expect that god to be dismissed as quickly as any of the other mythological gods creatures.

mythological gods _or_ creatures.

Anyway, A great thread. Thanks to S.P.A.O for setting it loose.

i don't believe in evolution, and the evidence does not support it. we need a better theory but science of evolution is refusing to evolve

"Or how about a compromise on slavery or equal rights."

Well, that's pretty much what we got

@Dee Eff, well absolutely. I took TheClark's sentiment to mean that as a scientist you can not say with absolute certainty that God, or indeed many possible conceivable beings of ridiculous proportions of absurdity. It's simply unknowable, and it is just not worth consideration. I am scientifically agnostic to God as I am of your goldfish idea, but practically atheist because both are concepts I don't need. I put just as much stock into Santa Claus as I do into God.

alamothe, really?
What about the fossil record indicating that a succession of organisms can be seen to evolve when arranged chronologically based on their stratification in rock layers and the phylogenetic tree drawn up from this evidence?
What about the homologies between organisms and vestigial features and the consequent phylogenetic tree drawn up from this evidence?
What about genetic analysis measuring the phylogenetic relationships between organisms based upon their shared mutations and ancestral DNA sequences for proteins, in mitochondria, and in ribosomal DNA and the consequent phylogenetic tree drawn up from this evidence?
What about the comparative physiology and biochemistry arranging phylogenetic relatedness based upon the degree of mutations present in common proteins and the homologies in biochemical structures such as lipid bilayers, endosymbiotic organelles, and the chirality of DNA and RNA and the consequent phylogenetic trees drawn up from this evidence?
What about the fact that all of these trees drawn from different bodies of evidence all agree upon the same phylogenetic tree to an incredible degree of accuracy, within the margin of errors given by the amount of data that we have to work with?

@alamothe - what evidence, specifically, do you think doesn't support evolution? You can declare that that is the case but without providing examples or going into more detail you aren't adding anything to the conversation, and I'm tending toward thinking you're just trolling.

yea alamonthe doesnt know what hes talking about