I am holding a ball in my hand about 4 feet off the ground. I let go of the ball and what happens? It drops to the ground.

Why does this happen? Because there are laws of gravity. Laws that have been proven because they are constant and irrefutable. The ball never falls up, it drops.

Who created the laws of gravity? I don't know. I have seen no proof one way or another. I know what I believe but there is no proof like there is that the ball will drop.

According to a strict interpretation of the Bible, the world is only a few thousand years old (counting back the begats). Yet scientifically proven methods, such as carbon dating, show that its actually millions of years old.

The point is that there are irrefutable scientific facts. The Theory of Evolution fits those facts. No other theory does.

To Talaniman,
My BELIEFS are pretty close to yours. However, you can't say; "scientific evidence that you believe to be true". By its very definition scientific evidence is factual. Its not subject to belief. One may believe (or not) in conclusions based on the evidence, but not the evidence itself. And that's where Starman's arguments break down. He seems to think that scientifical proven facts are subject to belief. Either that or he can't separate the facts from the conclusions and merges them together.

The point that Tom and I have tried to make is that the facts are separate. The facts are facts. We may not disagree with the conclusions some people derive from those facts.

As for me (and I think Tom as well), until and unless someone can come up with a viable theory that better fits the facts, or proof of some other theory, we feel that Evoultion makes the most sense.

My only point was it is all subject to the limit of our intelligence as ancient man knew nothing of gravity or the sun being the center of the solar system but he did his best with what he had and even though we have more info at our disposal we still cannot connect all the dot For example it is a scientific fact that we share 98% the same DNA with the apes so many have said we have evolved from primates and have been looking for the missing link for ages but have not found it. So the conclusion while it has a strong argument is not a fact but a belief based on given facts pending MORE evidence. As we wait for more evidence or discover more of Gods design we can only be human and speculate, facts notwithstanding.:cool: :)

Not trying to convince anyone of anything just expressing myself and staying busy till the grandkids get here and the world as I know it changes-Now that's a fact!

Good post Scotty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I am holding a ball in my hand about 4 feet off the ground. I let go of the ball and what happens? It drops to the ground.

Why does this happen? Because there are laws of gravity. Laws that have been proven because they are constant and irrefutable. The ball never falls up, it drops.

Who created the laws of gravity? I don't know. I have seen no proof one way or another. I know what I believe but there is no proof like there is that the ball will drop.

According to a strict interpretation of the Bible, the world is only a few thousand years old (counting back the begats). Yet scientifically proven methods, such as carbon dating, show that its actually millions of years old.

The point is that there are irrefutable scientific facts. The Theory of Evolution fits those facts. No other theory does.

To Talaniman,
My BELIEFS are pretty close to yours. However, you can't say; "scientific evidence that you believe to be true". By its very definition scientific evidence is factual. Its not subject to belief. One may believe (or not) in conclusions based on the evidence, but not the evidence itself. And that's where Starman's arguments break down. He seems to think that scientifically proven facts are subject to belief. Either that or he can't separate the facts from the conclusions and merges them together.

The point that Tom and I have tried to make is that the facts are separate. The facts are facts. We may not disagree with the conclusions some people derive from those facts.

As for me (and I think Tom as well), until and unless someone can come up with a viable theory that better fits the facts, or proof of some other theory, we feel that Evoultion makes the most sense.

---

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is several thousand years old. That's a biblical misinterpretation.



Of course there are irrefutable facts as detected by our subjective senses.
I do see these so called irrefutable facts you allude to and accept perceived facts as facts. I just don't agree that these so-called facts prove evolution/ The sad truith is that facts can be, have been, and are manipulated in such ways as to create the illusion of supporting an idea. In short the patient is stretched or shortened to fit the bed as convenience presents itself. It's done all the time in politics where the same fact is interpreted in several different ways as convenience dictates. True, that is a social science, but facts are facts.

How many times have evolutionists asserted that a certain fossil represented one of mankind's ancestors and then several years later said it wasn't? Evolutionists have even put forth hoaxes as fact and only discovered them to be hoaxes later when these were examined as they should have been examined before blindly accepting them as fact.

During that interval those who consider evolutionist scierntific oipinion sacrosanct would celebrate the discovery and use it to refute the Genesis account. Then suddenly what had been put forth as irrefutable fact, had to be rejected for what it was, an overzelous misinterpretation of facts to support an idea.


There are also the cases where facts not fitting the idea are either discarded or ignored. Example? The remains of modern humans found alongside their supposed simian ancestors. I don't think that ignoring such evidence makes for trust in the people doing the research. Do you?

BTW
Neither do I see any reason why I should totally ignore, as evolutionists do, the scientific opinion of fully qualified scientists who are not evolutionists. Turning a deaf ear or calling them fanatics doesn't refute their views. It only shows the irrational approach which many evolutionists have toward the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is seven thousand years old. That's a biblical misinterpretation.


Actually, I can't be merging facts with conclusions because I know the difference between the two. Actually, I do see the facts brought to my attention. I just don't agree that they prove evolution. I also see the conclusions you say I don't see or understand as for what they are,
interpretations of facts strung out in a convenient way to support an idea which is simply that--an idea. In short the patient is stretched or shortened to fit the bed as convenience presents itself.

The facts which are found and put forth as inevitably supporting evolution because the person finding these things has evolution in his mind before he finds them and then tries to niche them into the pattern he thinks already is there. If the facts don't fit he ignores it just as they have the remains of modern humans found alongside their supposed simian ancestors.

BTW

You seem to be isolating me as some kind of anomaly. That's really unfair since there are countless others, far more educated than you and I who refuse to accept what you say I am blind to. I suppose thery are blind as well? The reason evolutionists downplay their scientifically based opinions is because they tag them as fanatics even before they speak their minds. Which to me, with all due respect,smacks of brainwashing.

---

You got to admit once people get a notion in their heads it takes a lot of dynamite to get it out so we humans are doomed to move slowly into enlightenment. In the mean time anyone with a pet theory can voice it and sound like they know what their talking about and right or wrong till all the evidence is in its so much yakety yak! Even and some here have admitted it, evolution may fit the parameters but there are still more facts to be brought to light. I think the original question ask if evolution or intelligent design should be taught. Teach them both with the disclaimer WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedball1

Starman,
I can see no reason to continue a debate where no one wins and emotions get frayed. While it was fun for a while I'm getting the impression that we're "beating a dead horse" by continuing.
You have a great week end. Tom

---

I understand how you feel about the fanatics you mention. It reminds me of the film Contact based on the book written by the late Carl Sagan where a religious fanatic places a bomb for some religious reason he cooked up. I also understand that many religious people might feel strongly about abortion. But that doesn't justify acts of terrorism or the taking of human life. As a matter of fact, it contradicts what they are fighting for by showing disregard for human lives. It also contradicts what Jesus said about treating others. So they are wrong on both counts.

Yes, I know that debates are unproductive and that's why I have avoided them for the past thirty years and continue to do so. How I got involved in this one after so long beats me. In any case, it was an interesting conversation. As to the effects of the debate, I remain as I started just as you do. LOL

In any case, my apologies as well if I was rude in any way.

Have a great day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

For example it is a scientific fact that we share 98% the same DNA with the apes so many have said we have evolved from primates and have been looking for the missing link for ages but have not found it. So the conclusion while it has a strong argument is not a fact but a belief based on given facts pending MORE evidence.

---

Exactly my point! Sharing 98% of DNA with apes is a fact. That we evolved from them is a conclusion based on that fact.

But, I again say that the Theory of Evolution is the only one that fits the facts. I believe in Evolution because I have looked at the facts and decided that it fits. Not because teachers and other scientists have said it fits, but because it makes the most sense to me. I've read some of the attempts to refute the theory and none make the same level of sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is several thousand years old. That's a biblical misinterpretation.

---

So how old does the Bible indicate the world is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Of course there are irrefutable facts as detected by our subjective senses.
I do see these so called irrefutable facts you allude to and accept perceived facts as facts. I just don't agree that these so-called facts prove evolution/

---

See there you go again. You agree there are irrefutable facts, but then you refer to "so-called facts". Effectively denigrating and denying these facts. You can't have it both ways.

You are entitled to believe whatever conclusions you want to believe about the facts. But what I've seen, throughout this thread, is a denial of the facts on which Evolution is based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

BTW
Neither do I see any reason why I should totally ignore, as evolutionists do, the scientific opinion of fully qualified scientists who are not evolutionists. Turning a deaf ear or calling them fanatics doesn't refute their views. It only shows the irrational approach which many evolutionists have toward the subject.

---

Who says you should? Who says Tom or I or anyone believing in Evolution does? And what does referring to some evolutionists as irrational do? Since there is NO absolute proof of Creationism, it would seem that creationists are the irrational ones since their beliefs are not based on factual evidence.

Let me suggest a statement from you that I could accept.
While I understand there is proven scientific evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution, I have read a significant body of writings that refute Evolution. I've also seen factual evidence that refutes some of the evidence used to prove Evolution. Therefore, I don't believe in Evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You got to admit once people get a notion in their heads it takes a lot of dynamite to get it out so we humans are doomed to move slowly into enlightenment. In the mean time anyone with a pet theory can voice it and sound like they know what their talking about and right or wrong till all the evidence is in its so much yakety yak! Even and some here have admitted it, evolution may fit the parameters but there are still more facts to be brought to light. I think the original question ask if evolution or intelligent design should be taught. Teach them both with the disclaimer WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!

---

You hit the nail right on the head. Only the evolutionist side is being taught while the other side is shunted aside as if of no consequence. It stands to reason that such a policy will have an effect on how children view religion.
If we deny that it has this effect then we would have to deny that children are very susceptible to teachings by what they consider authority figures.
Furthermore, they are told to answer evolution questions in the affirmative regardless of parental religious teachings. So your suggestion would certainly balance the playing table.

The Rutherford Institute - Commentary
Our children should be given a choice. At least, they will be getting both sides of a fundamental question.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning Grasping for the Wind.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?record_id=316

[QUOTE=ScottGem]Exactly my point! Sharing 98% of DNA with apes is a fact. That we evolved from them is a conclusion based on that fact.

But, I again say that the Theory of Evolution is the only one that fits the facts. I believe in Evolution because I have looked at the facts and decided that it fits. Not because teachers and other scientists have said it fits, but because it makes the most sense to me. I've read some of the attempts to refute the theory and none make the same level of sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

So how old does the Bible indicate the world is?

---

It doesn't give a specific age for the earth.

Quote:

---

See there you go again. You agree there are irrefutable facts, but then you refer to "so-called facts". Effectively denigrating and denying these facts. You can't have it both ways.

---

No denigration intended. Just that all we know is sense based and as such it is open to perceptual interpretation. But assuming that we are perceiving things as they are, then there are definitely facts. But the assumption is necessary nevertheless.

Quote:

---

You are entitled to believe whatever conclusions you want to believe about the facts. But what I've seen, throughout this thread, is a denial of the facts on which Evolution is based.

---

Not at all! I recognize the facts you mention. Perhaps an example will clear this up. Take the upright walking simian creatures claimed to be our ancestors. The fact is that these creatures existed and that their skeletal structure indicates an upright walking manner. Accepted! What is not accepted is the evolutionist interpretation of that fact as making these creatures our ancestors. Hope that clears it up. That's the common fallacy of considering something the cause of something else simply because it has temporal priority.

post hoc fallacy
Post hoc fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event.
www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html

Quote:

---

Who says you should? Who says Tom or I or anyone believing in Evolution does? And what does referring to some evolutionists as irrational do? Since there is NO absolute proof of Creationism, it would seem that creationists are the irrational ones since their beliefs are not based on factual evidence.

---

Your interpretation of what constitutres factual evidence. Interpretation of facts is not equivalent to factual evidence.

Quote:

---

You are entitled to believe whatever conclusions you want to believe about the facts. But what I've seen, throughout this thread, is a denial of the facts on which Evolution is based.

---

Not at all! I recognize the facts you mention. Perhaps an example will clear this up. Take the upright walking simian fossils claimed to be our ancestors. The fact is that these creatures existed and that their skeletal structure indicates an upright walking manner. Accepted! What is not accepted is the evolutionist interpretation of that fact as making these creatures our ancestors. Hope that clears it up. That's the common fallacy of considering something the cause of something else simply because it has temporal priority.

post hoc fallacy
Post hoc fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event.
www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html

Scott

Quote:

---

Exactly my point! Sharing 98% of DNA with apes is a fact. That we evolved from them is a conclusion based on that fact.

---

That we come from apes is not a fact only a theory

Starman

Quote:

---

Interpretation of facts is not equivalent to factual evidence

---

This I agree with and that interpretation is opinion and not fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Scott

That we come from apes is not a fact only a theory

---

That's what I said and what I have been saying.

Starman,
I agree the bible doesn't give a specific age of the Earth. However, if one calculates based on the begats (which is what I said) then the indication is several thousand years.

You may think you aren't denying the facts, but that's not what's coming out of what you write. Let me show an example. You state: "Your interpretation of what constitutres factual evidence. Interpretation of facts is not equivalent to factual evidence." This was in answer to my asking 'who says you should ignore anti-evolution scientists?'. But all I have ever stated in this thread, is that I believe in Evolution based on scientific facts. I have said very little about what factual evidence I am considering. I have been very adamant that you are entitled to your interpretation. It has been YOUR assumption that I am part of the brain washed you refer to who have not considered other interpretations or other facts that might not support Evolution.

No one is denying that children should be given a choice. The difference is in WHERE the choice should be given. Since Creationism is based primarily on faith and religion, then it should be taught as part of religious teachings. In America, with separation of church and state, it does not belong in publicly funded schools. Which finally brings us around to the original question.

Tally,
I can see a "glitch" in your statrment, "I think the original question ask if evolution or intelligent design should be taught. Teach them both with the disclaimer WE STILL DON"T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!"
( Scottgem covered this as I was writing this post, but I'll put it up anyhow.)

Is it your contension that the Christian Religion should be taught in the public school system and paid for with tax dollars? The Religious Right have been attempting to force Creation in science and biology clases for years. You have just hit the same snag that is the main pitfall for Creationists. Creation demands a Creator just as Intelligent Design demands a Designer. What does a teacher say when a young fundamentalist brings up the "question", "Who is the Designer?"
And the teacher answers, "WE STILL DON"T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!" Well that kid knows the "truth" he was brought up to believe every word in the Bible is the literal Word of God. Wouldn't that be denying the Bible? The literal word of God that this pupil was brought up to believe? No, you can't mix religion with science and come up with a plan that pleases everyone
And what of kids of different religions and beliefs? And the kids that were brought up as freethinkers. The atheists and agnostics? What are they? Chopped liver?
This is why the framers of the Constitution, in all their wisdom, wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Now you can try as you might to deny that creationism has anything to do with religion but there's that pesky "snag" again. Who is the Designer? If you answer that with a "I don't know" then you aren't teaching are you? And if you answer God or a Supreme Being then you have just established a government backed religion.
Bottom line. Religion, faith and belief belong in the Church. Established facts, logic and reason belong in the classrom.

Speedball1-You open a lot of issues so let me attempt to sort them out. In America all religion should be discussed and the fact that none can be in our schools is to the detriment of our young generation. Religion should be as free in the school as out as I think this would promote the tolerance a free multicultural nation deserves instead of this Politically correct nobody says nothing in school about GOD attitude we have now, just my opinion! I also think that in a free and open debate many views will be presented and no matter how blue in the face you get eventually you come to YOU STILL DON"T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH! The truth is tho, we don't know do we? . So to teach anything ,but the truth is not teaching either its brainwashing! And just for arguments sake just because it is discussed in schools doesn't mean that it is backed by the government, And since when is declaring ones opinion establishing a government backed religion.? For to long we in America have been so afraid to express ourselves that we have been whupped in to silence by those who wish to silence anything that their so called bibles are against. That is not how a free society works in my book. That is also not how the tolerance for others works in my book either. And when little Johnny says he knows the truth you know good and well he is just parroting the parents. Which brings me to the whole crux of the problem, NOBODY is humble enough to admit the truth or else we could all be comfortable saying I DON"T KNOW!

Tally,

"just for arguments sake just because it is discussed in schools doesn't mean that it is backed by the government, And since when is declaring ones opinion establishing a government backed religion."

If you teach Creationism in the public school system then you bring a Christian concept of how mankind came into being into a classroom and pay for it with tax dollars. And if you attempt to tapdance around the word "teach" by calling it a "discussion" or a "opinion" it doesn't change a thing.
You're still inserting a religious concept into the classrom. And that, my friend, is called proselytizing.

" Religion should be as free in the school as out"
And here we agree. But not just one religion, and not in a science or biology class but in a separate class devoted to comparative religions.
I would like to see ALL religions taught. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Wican plus the ancient mystery and pagan religions.
The Religious Right is dead set against this.
Tally, you sound open minded enough to agree that one religion should not be the only one brought into the classroom. Teaching all religions would not be "establishing just one" so I think the First Amendment wouldn't apply.

It would appear that you and I aren't that far apart. Regards, Tom

" Religion should be as free in the school as out-I mean't all religions sorry. I said before I think it important that our children be exposed to all that America has to offer as tolerance is the key to future peace I believe.

ID believers think it can be taught as science because they think that science is based on "faith".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The same can be said, with more basis, about religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is drummed into people during their more impressionable years.

What I see the fact here is that you see the Theory of Evolution as attacking your beliefs in the Bible and religion. Therefore, to reinforce your belief, you have to attack Evolution. I prefer to look at the body of scientific evidence. When I do I see how that evidence fits the points of Evolution and I choose to accept Darwin's ideas as the most likely.

I don't now and never have put my faith in religion. I've indicated why in other posts I've placed on this site. If you want to put your faith in it, your are welcome to. But when you try to deny the scientific evidence. When you try to denigrate in the name of supporting your faith, I will dispute you.

BTW
What inconsistency?

---

Inconsistency is when scientists apply a certain method to Evolution and refuse to acknowledge the same method when it is applied to creation.

The problem here, actually, is that you keep seeing this as a contest in denigration and attacks. That makes the whole discussion untenable and best left alone. Perhaps you are judging my motives based on your own?

Are you trying to reinforce YOUR belief in Evolution by denigrating and attacking religion? Not everyone has the same motives so the wise thing to do is not to egocentrically jump to that conclusion.


BTW
As I said before: it's not the evidence which I disagree with-it's the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence which is made to appear to support evolution when there are other possibilities of which I will not go into because that might trigger more accusations ad infinitum and since I have high blood pressure I might wind up evolving into a corpse. Now you wouldn't want that right?


Not all scientists accept evolution as the following quotes from respected scientists proves:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)


"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Inconsistency is when scientists apply a certain method to Evolution and refuse to acknowledge the same method when it is applied to creation.

---

Refuse or just don't accept? As Tom keeps saying there is no scientific proof of a Creator. Absent that, how can any scientific proofs be made for Creationism or Intelligent Design?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

The problem here, actually, is that you keep seeing this as a contest in denigration and attacks. That makes the whole discussion untenable and best left alone. Perhaps you are judging my motives based on your own?

---

Frankly I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. All my posts here have been simply a statement of why I believe in evolution and attempts to refute claims that the Theory of Evolution is totally unfounded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Are you trying to reinforce YOUR belief in Evolution by denigrating and attacking religion? Not everyone has the same motives so the wise thing to do is not to egocentrically jump to that conclusion.

---

No, my feelings about religion have little to do with my feelings about Evolution. I have said several times that I don't believe that Evolution is in direct contradiction to the Bible, except for a literal interpretation. My belief in Evolution is because it's the only theory that is supported by a preponderance of scientific fact. Something I have stated several times and something I don't see refuted, by anything other than rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

BTW
As I said before: it's not the evidence which I disagree with-it's the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence which is made to appear to support evolution when there are other possibilities of which I will not go into because that might trigger more accusations ad infinitum and since I have high blood pressure I might wind up evolving into a corpse. Now you wouldn't want that right?

---

And I've responded to this by suggesting that you review what you've said. Because much of what you have said seems to be denigrating the scientific facts, not just Evolutionist interpretation of them. If you want to disagree with Evolutionist interpretation that is your right. But then deal with the interpretaions not the facts themselves.

As for your quotes. It is my experience that support against Evolution is an highly emotional charged since anti-Evolutionists feel its an attack on their religious beliefs. Ergo, even normally rational scientists may succumb to emotional rhetoric.

By ScottGem

Quote:

---

Refuse or just don't accept? As Tom keeps saying there is no scientific proof of a Creator. Absent that, how can any scientific proofs be made for Creationism or Intelligent Design?

---

Because science cannot prove or disprove doesn't mean it cannot exist. I wake up every day to the proof that the Creator does indeed exist. No matter how much science you apply or use to refute, anyone who believes can always stand firm in their convictions. Now making an argument for certain theories such as creationism or evolution is a different matter with the same answer:There may indeed be physical evidence that points in a certain direction and logical minds can make the leap of faith to any conclusion they wish but it is only speculation or opinion, absent of hard fact for example-Man came from the apes and no evidence connecting the two has ever been found so this statement even with all the evidence is only an opinion, learned or not. If you flip the coin over And I will concede that my relationship with a God of my understanding is also an opinion(mine) and has nothing to do with any one else's way they wish to think. So you may be able to quote scripture or publish scientific fact the sad(real) truth is it only means something to YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

by ScottGem

Because science cannot prove or disprove doesnt mean it cannot exist.

---

Agreed. But that leaves it up to the individual to choose whether to believe only in what can be proven or to rely on their faith as proof.