[sassyT]

I never said I was wrong. There is nothing wrong with assumptions. We use assumptions everyday, we see something behave one way and we assume that it will happen the same way or close to the same way again. If you try to grab the second bar of the monkey bars and fail. Isn't it safe to assume that if you try to grab the third bar you would fail as well? I don't see anything wrong with that kind assumptions.

A layman understanding of most scientific theory maybe but all existing theories fit all evidence that why they are still theory. Again you are confusing the common use of theory with the scientific version. Until you get the difference between the two the only reason to respond to you is so young person reading this doesn't think you are right and we slip a little farther into the dark ages.


So were most of the criminals. What is your point? It still stands that saying god did it gets us no where.

I think someone needs to remind michealb the meanings of assuption and theory

As·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.


The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
Presumption; arrogance.
Logic. A minor premise.

The·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. -ries.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

So if you believe science as fact to explain origins despite the fact that we all know there is nothing factual about it, then your beliefs are as good as religious person because it all faith. Your FAITH is in man and science and Christian's faith is in God. Bottom line it is all FAITH.

[sassyT]

If you want to understand, why do you not want to build on the work of others. Surely even you can understand that the next great scientific discovery is going to come from someone who has studied theories. Even if you want to prove a theory wrong it has to be understood. If you really think evolution or the big bang theory is wrong you should demand it be taught in school because no one is going to prove it wrong if they don't understand it in the first place. Teaching god did it and then stopping isn't going to get us anywhere. If we are to understand this world we have to use our observations and assumptions, otherwise we say god did it go get a beer.

Yes the church was a the major source of learning during the Dark Ages, hence why it was the Dark Ages.

Also I don't think I ever said that science doesn't use assumptions. Of course we use assumptions otherwise we would have to make every calculation in to infinity because how could we know a higher number won't work unless we assume that since the lower onces didn't the higher number won't work either or something to that effect.

I know this is a cliché but its so fitting here. "Assume" makes an as* out of u & me.. :D

Science is just man's attempt at making sense of what God ALREADY created thousands of years ago. So God is the altermate scientist. He created it all. He is a Genius!

[sassyT]

So it follows that there is no evidence of a god therefore your faith is simply that - .

There is no evidence for God? You are joking right?. lol who told you that?

There is an insurmountable amount of evidence for God. A lot more evidence for God than there is for that Hoax evolution and the Big bang.
The evidence is there, the only difference is whether you see the evidence as sufficient or not. I see the evidence as more than sufficient while you don't.
So the evidence is there but whether one accepts it as sufficient or not, is a purely subjective opinion

[De Maria]

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should have read that article a little closer. It is a logical fallacy which you committed before. In essence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence:

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist."

"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."

"Creationists don't have proof that there was an intelligent designer, therefore there must not have been intelligent design."


Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

Correct, it applies to both sides.

[michealb]

Your still using the wrong definitions.
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

If you are going to ignore facts and not learn I don't know what to tell you because it really doesn't matter what I tell you. You aren't interested in learning your interested pushing your belief on people without regard to fact or reality.

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” ~Elbert Hubbard

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Your still using the wrong definitions.
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

You don't need to explain what a theory is to me. How ever you want to slice it, a thoery is not a fact.

If you are going to ignore facts and not learn I don't know what to tell you because it really doesn't matter what I tell you. You aren't interested in learning your interested pushing your belief on people without regard to fact or reality.

I don't need to learn anything from you because you don't seem to even understand the fundamental principles of science. I am currently doing a graduate degree in Biology and I have an undergrad in Biology (minor in Chemistry) graduated magna laude, so if anyone is going to learn anything from the other, it going to be you.

The misunderstanding you seem to have is that you think just because scientific theories may use facts as a premise/basis for a theory, you conclude that the theory is in it self a fact. This can not be further from the truth. Most theories are based on assuptions more often than not. It seems you are the one who is trying to avoid the reality of this fact.

Oh and by the way, if anyone is "pushing their beliefs" on anyone, its YOU. Need I remind you that this is the religous forum not a science forum... lol So you are the one who needs to stop waisting your time preaching your beliefs in the big bang and all that rubbish to Christians/theists. I think I speak for all/most theists when I say we are not interested in your athiestic beliefs. Sorry..

[tarazhere]

my view on this subject is that there is a god, if you disagree then lets discuss what you think...the second question is if there is a God, whos God is the right God...and please dont say that everyones god is the right one, because that statement is contradiction itself.

HI! What a WONDERFUL topic! So many don't like to discuss religion, but when you have true faith, it's always a blessing to share the Word and the Gospel. Yes, I believe in God (The One & ONLY being my belief) who's story's told in The Holy Bible including Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Saviour (God's Son sent to earth in the Flesh to save and forgive us our sins by sacrificing His life), "Son" not in the sense we use the word, He was actually God in the flesh/human form, the only way he could come to Earth and we could handle it. They are One and the Same, The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

**IF THIS IS TOO LONG OR YOU DON'T CARE TO READ ALL THIS, PLEASE JUST SCROLL DOWN AND READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH!! THX. :-)

I've been a Christian all my life yet it's still difficult to explain, when you are touched by the Holy Spirit/God, you don't have to know all of the Bible to have faith and a relationship with God, it's felt spiritually (in my experience). I'm fairly young and still working on reading the entire Bible so I won't pretend to tell you I know it all, just my own feelings and experiences.

I agree it's contradictory to claim that everyone's "God" is right, or the right one for them, etc... The response from "Buzzman" who mentions God as the Alpha and Omega seems to know what they are talking about, have good knowledge of the Bible, and understand what it is to be a dedicated follower of Christ. I agree fully with what they said.

However, if you are not a Christian or are new to Christianity it can be very trying on the mind (the enemy/devil constantly fights God within our mind through fear, doubt, & negativity) in the sense that we simply don't have ALL the answers, but really no one does, therein lies the need for faith. That's why God is the creator and we are his children, just as no one will ever be perfect or free of sin on Earth, we'll also never fully understand until we meet in Heaven or the 2nd coming of Christ. God teaches us individually what we need to know and that personal relationship is very special, unique for all who seek Him.

Those who say they're Christian and believe that all God's are OK are wrong (whether they realize it or not, even if their intentions are good), it clearly says in the Bible there is only One True God and changing God's words to suit your own needs or wants due to selfishness, or what YOU feel safe or comfortable in believing is blasphemy or like trying to be God in a sense yourself, making up your own rules so to speak. It's considered lukewarm or in-between and God basically says he'd prefer someone to not believe at all than believe what they pick.

My interpretation of some parts of the Bible explain that the innocent aren't held accountable, but those who know of God/Jesus and decide to ignore this will be damned. To me, this means if a person lives their whole life taught ONLY a Non-Christian religion with truly no proper teaching or knowledge of God/Jesus Christ, they may still go to Heaven because they are "innocent" in God's eyes, this also true for children who die before they're old enough to understand. It seems harsh to believe those who know of Christianity and choose to ignore it won't be saved, but again, we can't possibly know ALL of God's plan, we just have to trust it. I know if I was raised believing one thing and told I wouldn't be saved if I didn't change and also would be punished if I abandoned my native religion, I probably wouldn't change due to loyalty & faith in what I was raised to believe, then again if I listened God could show me what was really right. It is made clear that there are a certain number of people/souls on Earth that won't follow Christ and be saved no matter what, it's what is written.

Christianity is the most factual and documented religion, a book I like to recommend is "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. He's a lawyer who was an atheist for many years, set out to find facts to disprove Christianity, found it impossible and ended up doing the opposite, convinced himself of the facts, and became saved and a follower of Christ!

A one world/unified religion will only happen if we see the End of Days, the Anti-Christ takes over as a one world leader, proceeds to lawfully force his new religion naming himself as god over everyone (Satan in the flesh). I feel this is part of the reason why there isn't a 100% worldly following of any one belief system.

The Bible is written to each of us individually, our own personal interpretation being how God communicates with us directly, it's really amazing. Of course there are areas with only one direct meaning, but there is much that can speak differently to each of us and always provide what you need to know, how and when you need to know it. All true Christians know what I mean here, it's not wordly but spiritual.

I feel I am sending you this response because God wants me to, I never talk to people online, just signed up here today to ask a question about my dog, randomly saw your question, and felt completely compelled to send you my thoughts. That to me is the hand of God.

Anyway, I hope at least some of this helps and you weren't bored or offended by anything I've said. Your name being "I need help fast" makes me concerned for you, and with love in my heart I will pray that Our Lord is with you and that you're well mind, body, and soul. If you would like to talk any further let me know, God Bless!

[michealb]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Oh and by the way, if anyone is "pushing their beliefs" on anyone, its YOU. Need I remind you that this is the religous forum not a science forum... lol So you are the one who needs to stop waisting your time preaching your beliefs in the big bang and all that rubbish to Christians/theists. I think I speak for all/most theists when I say we are not interested in your athiestic beliefs. Sorry..

So let me get this straight a question is posed of "Do you think there is a god?" the only answer that is allowed is the Christian/theist answer because it's posted in the religious forum. Wow.. talk about suppressing information.
The big bang and evolution theories aren't atheistic beliefs. They in no way disprove a god. Why would a god that is all powerful make a natural and explainable solution for everything up until this point, suddenly go I think I'll just poof humans into existence rather make it explainable like I have everything else. I would say if anything, if evolution is not true and a god did poof humans into existence than it would prove the limited power of that god since he couldn't keep continuity of design. Does a god of limited power deserve worship and if so where do we drawn the line at how much power? I have more power than some people should those with less power than me worship me? Does the fact that there is no perfect design rule out the possibility of a perfect designer? If the designer is perfect then everything he designs by extension has to be perfect for everyone otherwise he isn't perfect. Since everything isn't perfect that means no perfect designer that mean either a flawed designer or things came about some other way. So is god flawed/limited or is evolution true?

Also your personal credentials don't mean anything on the internet unless your willing to prove them. I know I'm not willing to prove who I am here, mainly because I'm afraid of religious people finding out who I am. So I suggest you use your posts(answer some biology questions) to prove you know what your talking about instead of claiming it with unprovable claims.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=michealb]

So let me get this straight a question is posed of "Do you think there is a god?" the only answer that is allowed is the Christian/theist answer because it's posted in the religious forum. Wow.. talk about suppressing information.

For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religious forum. So don't come on a religious forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then don't come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

The big bang and evolution theories aren't atheistic beliefs. They in no way disprove a god. Why would a god that is all powerful make a natural and explainable solution for everything up until this point, suddenly go I think I'll just poof humans into existence rather make it explainable like I have everything else.

This your reasoning and it is not making any sense to me, but what makes you think your reasoning is anything like God's

I would say if anything, if evolution is not true and a god did poof humans into existence than it would prove the limited power of that god since he couldn't keep continuity of design. Does a god of limited power deserve worship and if so where do we drawn the line at how much power? I have more power than some people should those with less power than me worship me? Does the fact that there is no perfect design rule out the possibility of a perfect designer? If the designer is perfect then everything he designs by extension has to be perfect for everyone otherwise he isn't perfect. Since everything isn't perfect that means no perfect designer that mean either a flawed designer or things came about some other way. So is god flawed/limited or is evolution true?

This is a circular argument... lol You are drawing your own subjective conclusions that have no factual basis. The premises of your arguments are as questionable as the conclusions.
First of all there is no solid evidence for evolution. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
Second of all the Bible clearly states that God created everything perfect until man rebelled against Him and a curse of death was upon the earth. So your perfect creator/ perfect designer argument falls apart right there because God is perfect and his creation was perfect until man messed up and man is still contuing to mess it up.

Also your personal credentials don't mean anything on the internet unless your willing to prove them. I know I'm not willing to prove who I am here, mainly because I'm afraid of religious people finding out who I am. So I suggest you use your posts(answer some biology questions) to prove you know what your talking about instead of claiming it with unprovable claims.

I don't need to prove anything to anyone because at the end of the day I know who I am & what I have achieved, and whether anyone here believes me or not, it does not make a material difference to my life.
I was just giving to an FYi so you can quit with the condescending remarks about scientific knowledge because given that I have studied science on an advanced level for many years, it makes your remarks poignantly contrary to reality.

[Capuchin]

For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religous forum. So dont come on a religous forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then dont come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

This isn't a religious forum, it's a forum for discussing religion.

[lobrobster]

There is no evidence for God? you are joking right?.... lol who told you that?

There is an insurmountable amount of evidence for God. A lot more evidence for God than there is for that Hoax evolution and the Big bang.
The evidence is there, the only difference is whether you see the evidence as sufficient or not. I see the evidence as more than sufficient while you don't.
So the evidence is there but whether one accepts it as sufficient or not, is a purely subjective opinion

Oh, Sassy. PLEASE don't tell me you think that evolution is a hoax! I can respect much of what you've said in this thread (whether I agree or not). The fact is, no one understands 'first cause' yet, so you're certainly entitled to your beliefs about it. But there's no excuse for making such an ignorant comment about the Theory of Evolution. The evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true is overwhelming! Tell me... How old do you think the earth is Sassy?

I briefly read another of your posts where you try to downplay ToE, because it's just a theory. Scientific theories are strong. They are not in any way like my 'theory' that if I leave 5 minutes later for work, my drive time will be shorter because I run into less traffic. Science doesn't use the word theory like the common populace does. When science proposes a theory, it means it is the 'best' explanation we have. ToE is most definitely the best explanation of how complicated organisms came to be. Evolution is a FACT like gravity is a FACT. Please don't fool yourself or worse, try to fool others. It's a tragedy that so many people (mostly Americans) are totally ignorant about evolution and what scientific theories actually mean.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Oh, Sassy. PLEASE don't tell me you think that evolution is a hoax! I can respect much of what you've said in this thread (whether I agree or not). The fact is, no one understands 'first cause' yet, so you're certainly entitled to your beliefs about it. But there's no excuse for making such an ignorant comment about the Theory of Evolution. The evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true is overwhelming!

Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing is what you should say. If man really evolve from an ape, then where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on lobrobster you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out.

Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

Here is what scientist have admitted about evidence for evolution:

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."


Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe. Evolutionist do not KNOW of man's origins. They can only make assumptions, speculate, theorise and hypothesise.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.

Tell me... How old do you think the earth is Sassy?

The age of the earth is unknowable. If YOU believe it is billions of years old it is by faith because carbon dating uses a number of unvarifiable assuptions as a premise making it subject to inaccuracy.

I briefly read another of your posts where you try to downplay ToE, because it's just a theory. Scientific theories are strong. They are not in any way like my 'theory' that if I leave 5 minutes later for work, my drive time will be shorter because I run into less traffic. Science doesn't use the word theory like the common populace does. When science proposes a theory, it means it is the 'best' explanation we have. ToE is most definitely the best explanation of how complicated organisms came to be. Evolution is a FACT like gravity is a FACT. Please don't fool yourself or worse, try to fool others. It's a tragedy that so many people (mostly Americans) are totally ignorant about evolution and what scientific theories actually. .

Like I said, don't just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

[Capuchin]

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

Really, we're resorting to quote mining now?

[retsoksirhc]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing is what you should say. If man really evolve from an ape, then where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on lobrobster you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out.

Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

Here is what scientist have admitted about evidence for evolution:

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."


Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe. Evolutionist do not KNOW of man's origins. They can only make assumptions, speculate, theorise and hypothesise.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.





The age of the earth is unknowable. If YOU believe it is billions of years old it is by faith because carbon dating uses a number of unvarifiable assuptions as a premise making it subject to inaccuracy.



Like I said, don't just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

Everything you just said... I could say the same about the THEORY of creationism. Where is the proof?

[sassyT]

[QUOTE=retsoksirhc]

Everything you just said...I could say the same about the THEORY of creationism. Where is the proof?

I am not the one who is claiming FACT here.

I believe creationism makes a more logical conclution given the complexity and intricacy of the universe. There is more evidence for a intelligent designer than there is for a big explosion that came from no where and magically bacame the vast and complex universe we see today. It just sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to me.
Despite my strong beliefs I am not going to claim it is Fact. So I would appreciate it if those who believe in evolution were to be reasonable enough to admit the same.

[sassyT]

Darwin

[templelane]

Sassy there are tons of transitional fossils, click the link below for a brief summary. Go to your local natural history museum if you want to see them yourself.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Here is a link explaining what a transitional fossil is so we don't have to rehash a similar what is a scientific theory argument except for tranitional fossil.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't use that tired old argument. Say God put transitional fossils in the relevant order of the rocks to test our faith if you want.

[michealb]

For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religious forum. So don't come on a religious forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then don't come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

I am interested in hearing what Christians/ thiests believe. I've said many times that it is important for me as an atheist to know what is going on in the heads of the majority. What I said about you is that your not interested in learning anything because no matter how many times your told that your using the wrong definitions for something you still come back with the wrong definition. If you continue to use the wrong definition for a word and use the wrong definition as part of your answer. What am I to think other than you have an agenda?

This your reasoning and it is not making any sense to me, but what makes you think your reasoning is anything like God's. This is a circular argument... lol You are drawing your own subjective conclusions that have no factual basis.
Second of all the Bible clearly states that God created everything perfect until man rebelled against Him and a curse of death was upon the earth. So your perfect creator/ perfect designer argument falls apart right there because God is perfect and his creation was perfect until man messed up and man is still contuing to mess it up.

My reasoning doesn't have to be like God's. If a being is perfect all must think so otherwise he isn't perfect. That is the problem with perfection. You have to resort to logic and logic would state that everything a perfect designer designs has to be perfect otherwise he isn't perfect. Even if the system was perfect at one point if it breaks down to a point where it is not longer perfect it means that the design wasn't perfect regardless of whose fault it is that the system broke down because a perfect designer would have foreseen the breakdown so regardless of whose logic you use an imperfect design means an imperfect designer or in this case no designer. Also I can't give you a factual argument when talking about something that doesn't exist.
[QUOTE]
First of all there is no solid evidence for evolution. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
[QUOTE]

Really?! Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo georgicus, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo cepranensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, and Homo sapiens idaltu to name a few transitional fossils. Fossils are never abundant. Why would you think that? If every creature that died formed a fossil you would be right but fossils take a very specific circumstances to form. You know that fossils aren't actually the bones of the animal but are minerals from the ground that slowly replaced the bones. This doesn't happen to the majority of the animals that die because they didn't die in a location that allows it. Disproving evolution should be very easy if it was wrong all it would take would be to find one fossil out of place in the soil layers but every fossil found has supported evolution. I have millions of fossils that support my point of view where is one that supports yours?

[retsoksirhc]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

I am not the one who is claiming FACT here.

I believe creationism makes a more logical conclution given the complexity and intricacy of the universe. There is more evidence for a inteligent designer than there is for a big explosion that came from no where and magically bacame the vast and complex universe we see today. it just sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to me.
Despite my strong beliefs i am not going to claim it is Fact. So i would appreciate it if those who believe in evolution were to be reasonable enough to admit the same.

Nor was I.

Like you, I also haven't claimed anything as fact.

Some (most) creationists use the bible as absolute proof of the existence of god and creationism, even though (most) atheists disagree.
Some (most) evolutionists use evolution and scientific study as proof of the existence of evolution, even though (most) creationists disagree.

That THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. Individually, one opinion on a help desk site really isn't going to matter.

I've got an idea... how about everyone stop trying to "win" this argument. It's been going on for centuries. I'm pretty sure a series of bits on a server somewhere isn't going to end it.

Can we get back to the original post?