God and Science (Specifically Evolution and Big Bang) are Mutually Exclusive

"scientists don't put people on trial because they disagree with data -" Not true, exhibit A being Bjorn Lomborg and his "Skeptical Environmentalist"- put on trial by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and then found to not be in the wrong in any way by the Danish Government's Investigation. "Why should we respect a god who's not fundamentally GOOD?" Because, by being OP/OS, He'll smite the hell out of you if you don't *wink*. That's the whole point of them being a God- the idea is you don't actually get a choice. "Doesn't the New Testament say the same god is loving, good, kind, gentle, etc...? Seems to me that indicates that this god IS indeed omnibenevolent, or he was after Jesus' time. I thought the lord was "kind and merciful, slow to anger, rich in kindness."" Well... its an interesting question, and one beyond this debate, I think. From my relatively limited religious studies, it seems that he tends to be "kind and merciful ..." if you essentially do what you are supposed to do, but isn't afraid to whip out the big guns so to speak, and did so often in the old testament. "That is not what I intend to imply - I mean that religion has consistently meditated, researched, learned, etc... to help itself agree with science. Not because they believe there's a fundamental need for change or that the previous methods were wrong." I don't see your point. Isn't a new discovery in the world of science a fundamental reason to re-examine your outlook on the world and your understanding of it, including religion? --- Now, however, I will challenge your qualitative assumptions- my trump card, of sorts. --- "If he is ***undetectable by science***, dubious at best to reason, ***and doesn't show up in verifiable test results***, why on earth would he not have given concrete evidence of his existence and try to lead us astray?" Those two highlighted sections, fine sir, are where you are wrong. You assume that God is not detectable by science and does not show up in tests- while the proof is moderate, this is not true. I present to you an excerpt from the British Royal College of Psychiatry's report on Spirituality and Mental Health- the British Royal College not being religiously affiliated in any way: "In the past decade or so, researchers across a wide range of disciplines have started to explore and *acknowledge* the *positive contribution* spirituality can make to health" (1) (the *s were added by me) Now, I readily admit that the link is very weak- but it is definitely there. If god does not exist or cannot be detected, why do various studies show that religion contributes positively to mental health? I'm not going to say that this proves God's existence, but religion (and hence God) does have an effect on people's health- hence, it would not be unreasonable to venture that Evolution is indeed part of God's grand plan, so to speak. "If he had a plan, he would have just created everything according to his original plan" And if this *is* his original plan? I am not saying it is, but it is an option you must leave open to those torn between religion and science. "Basic morality, which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with social contract and biology (which have been around a lot longer than religion...), will teach you how to be a good person without taking 1/10 of your money." If this is true, then why do concepts of what is right vary so widely from place to place? Humans all have very very similar biology, and social contract stems from culture, of which religion is a very big part. If basic morality stems only from biology, why did Herodotus write of the Persian King Darius concluding that morals differed widely among people by asking a Greek and an Indian about whether they would eat or burn their dead, respectively? You cannot argue that religion plays no part in morality. Since this is my last response, I must say it has been a pleasure debating with you. References: 1.http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk...