On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well. You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.

This is weiser at his absurd best.

Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved.

Just because it is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible. If it occurs,
nothing changes. If you are overly focused on the probability, then you start
searching for other excuses for your lack of understanding. If there is a
legitimate reason for doubting, the Bayesian approach is valid. What the
"intelligent design" advocates ignore is that there isn't a single roll of
the dice.

less energy dense fuel than oil

The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" is that is contains no energy
that wasn't put there by someone. It isn't a fuel, merely a means of
transporting energy. It doesn't address an energy problem, only a
portability problem. There is still a requirement for a source(s)
of energy and the "hydrogen economy" conveniently ignores the
associated costs and problems. In the end, hydrogen is a way of
reducing the overall efficiency of an energy system. That's not
a solution.

Mike