Is this Ignorance?

May I use the above in my signature?

Be my guest.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

they told me if I voted for John McCain that I would get a President like Bush that would violate the airspace and sovereignty of an allied nation with a military force to assassinate a foreign national of another allied country and then their dead body would be dumped in the ocean. and they were right.

Is it ignorant of me to say that I have no idea if we were 'YECed' onto the planet, or if we arose from evolution, because neither side can justify their point of view beyond reasonable doubt?

I've thought about evolution for a long time... I've also thought about creation for a long time. After a few years I have decided, I don't know... I never will know, and in the end I also don't care. I'm here now... and none of us truly know and yet a lot of us care way too much.

So I was called ignorant by a YEC buddy of mine for deciding not to make a decision.

So a few things. Can anyone prove either YEC or evolution to me beyond reasonable doubt? And is it ignorant to not choose a side when I don't know, and really in the end... can never know?

All of the observations and evidence support the Theory of Evolution. The only reason it is still theory is only because we haven't directly observed it.

True, but evolutionary theory has strong evidence, while YEC has none.
Technically, we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth isn't secretly ruled by a cabal of invisible pink unicorns, either.

I find that deliciously ironic.

Ask yourself this: How much Bible/basic doctrine do I have to give up, if I embrace evolution?

Evolutionary theory makes accurate predictions. Hard to see how it could be completely wrong if it makes good predictions.

If in some way, Evolutionary Theory was completely disproven, a vast amount of our observations and our knowledge of paleontology, genetics and biology in general would simply make no sense.

I'll do that.

First: The Hominid Transition fossils. Fairly obvious and well known. You can find those with a Google search.

Whales and dolphins have vestigial leg bones (Nemoto, T. (1963) "New records of sperm whales with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. No. 17)

Some human infants are born with an atavistic tail (Dubrow, T. J., Wackym, P. A., and Lesavoy, M. A. (1988) "Detailing the human tail." Annals of Plastic Surgery 20:340-344. [PubMed])

Typically, the tail is present in utero, but disappears before birth. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes an infant will be born with a tail. Usually they are completely superficial. But sometimes, it will completely functional, containing vertebrae and cartilage.

How come they're never hung up in museums?

That would be interesting.... If I was museum curator, I'd certainly try and put some atavistic skeletons on display.

....And no one saw God create ex nihilo either. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory is the theory with all the extant evidence, ID has none, and Creationism has been torn to shreds by radiometric dating, astrophysics and geology while also having no evidence.

and some are willing to believe evolution because they don't want a god involved.

You are missing the point. We can observe fossils, we can date them with radiometric techniques, we can sequence our genomes, see all the similarities in not only genes, but the pseudo-genes in between, we can observe evolution taking place in a bacteria culture, we can see the atavisms: The external limbs on cetacea, the tails in humans.

All of the observations and evidence support the Theory of Evolution. The only reason it is still theory is only because we haven't directly observed it. It is a theory in about the same way gravity and atomics are.

"All observations support evolution" This is also coming from people who support evolution.......Biased truth is not truth at all.

A smart person can make good predictions off of flawed information.

We've never seen evolution. We never will see evolution.

We have bones in the ground, and fossils and we say "this organism must be this organisms ancestor," or "it looks like this organism may have migrated from here."

To me... maybe I'm wrong... but to me it seems that evolution's falsification would have little bearing on any field except for paleontology in the end.

Perhaps in paleontology... but some of our discoveries and knowledge regarding genetics and biology was made by a priest.

There are Christian's that work in the fields of biology and genetics.

So I'm not entirely sure how and unobserved process not being real is going to alter information that we can observe (such as genes, DNA, biosemiotics, etc.)

You simply were the issue. You actually tried to PUSH your point. I did not post for someone to answer whether one was better or the other was. I have my own mind, my own soul. I can make that choice just fine on my own. It angers me that someone of your age should even try to say as you said in this post as well that one has the most proof. Good god, if the truth was plainly evident we'd all follow it. We don't. get over yourself.

And you think like that because of who were born to and where you were born and for no other reason, you had creationist parents, so, you are a creationist, it's not your fault in fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with you, you had no say in the matter.
(We will now be told that his parents were in fact Atheists and he found his God all on his own without any prompting from anyone)

Will you calm down? Your taking this way to personally. If you don't want anyone to respond to your posts, then do not post.

Evolution is observation