Evolution is a FACT!!!!

[grimbly]

I take that to mean that you have no rebuttal to the mountains of evidence that we have already uncovered. So your statement that we have no transitional fossils was incorrect. I hope that in the future you won't be posting statements that you now know to be untrue.

 

[random_guy]

I have a serious question with regard to all this evidence you say is in support of transitional fossils. I don't go to a university or subscribe to the paleontology journals. All I have is an internet search. I'm usually pretty good about finding information there.

When I search for images (not verbiage or drawings) of "transitional fossils" I get some charts of human skulls or some shells, both of which seemed to be arranged in a bias way or some drawings of what someone might theorize about it. But to be honest, I don't see anything that would convince me in even the slightest way. If there are more "than you could look at in your life time", why aren't more examples put forth where the layperson can have access to them?

Again, I'm serious here. I would like to see them. Why does it seem like they are being protected? Are the books also full of these images? If so, which books specifically so that I can get a copy? Why can't a website be devoted to all these images and examples and FACTS about macro-evolution (one species to another) and then when one of us asks for the evidence we could be directed to that site? This seems simple enough. Maybe there already is one. I'm really not interested in the sites that just have the propaganda; I just want to investigate the real factual data.

Simple, it takes a lot more than "looking at pictures" to draw up the tree of life. You have to know about actual measurements of bones, etc.

As for the life time of evidence, go to
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
Pick any branching point, such as
http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
and you'll see a list of names.
Go to scholar.google.com and type in the name, such as tetrapod transition. You will come back with hundreds of hits. Just go through the papers and you can easily find papers that talk about fossils that were found.

For example, I found,
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cg...0.1086/425183&erFrom=8544178434988106545Guest
This is a review, and while it might not have pictures, being a review, it lists hundreds of scientific papers that were used to build the review. Follow the papers cited, and continue on from there.

You might not be able to understand the language right away, but as all scientific fields, you need to learn the vocabulary before you can fully understand the evidence.

Like I and others have said, the evidence is there. I doubt you or anyone else can review all the evidence within their lifetime. The question is if you're actually willing to look for it, or do you only want it on a silver platter. If that's the case, good luck finding it, because science is a lot more than pretty pictures.

EDIT:

Also, I think it's rather silly to suggest a conspiracy exists to hide the evidence. That's why all scientific papers can be found and why they are published. If there really was a conspiracy to hide evidence, why print all these papers in journals. All it takes is one person with an inquistive mind to check the evidence. Don't you think one person would've easily found out about the conspiracy by now if that's the case? If anything, Creationists have something to hide. That's why they refuse to list evidence contrary to their beliefs. Any evidence that does not follow their interpretation is thrown out. Try doing that in science, and you'll lose your job.

 

[Floodnut]

I am aware that you refuse to believe and that the simple facts of Scripture will never convince you. I know it and you know it as you have stated. You do not believe Moses and the prophets and you will not believe though One rose from the dead.

 

[laptoppop]

In terms of transitional fossils, I will just point out that the lack of expected fossils were why various evolutionists support the concept of punctuated equilibrium. We do not have a shortage of fossils - but changes appear fully developed/adapted for their evironment.

Of course, there are lots of other problems - such as the lack of precursors to the amazing variety of live in the "cambrian" strata. Its an old example, but still valid -- the trilobite eye is a wonder to behold, and yet somehow it sprang into being from .......

The other thing I've noticed is that in research papers, speculation that sounds reasonable is often accepted as evidence. All one must come up with is a reasonable sounding linkage between disparate fossils and it is accepted. Of course, there have been occasions where later evidence overturns the earlier linkage, but that doesn't stop the speculation.

 

[crawfish]

I am aware that you refuse to believe and that the simple facts of Scripture will never convince you. I know it and you know it as you have stated. You do not believe Moses and the prophets and you will not believe though One rose from the dead.

You had me until "simple facts of the scriptures". Unlike most creationists, God is NOT simple.

The Bible is one long history of God both breaking and surpassing the expectations of those who read things into it. Think about it: the Hebrews under David could never have imagined the years of Babylonian/Persian captivity in light of what they thought of God's plan. The Jews of Jesus' day did not imagine a spiritual kingdom of Heaven, thinking the messiah would bring about an earthy kingdom.
We are not any different today, reading the scriptures and thinking God made it all clear to us.

The Bible itself shows that most of the time, the God's purpose and meaning in scripture isn't clear until the event itself occurs. It's very presumptuous to think any other way.

 

[keyarch]

Simple, it takes a lot more than "looking at pictures" to draw up the tree of life. You have to know about actual measurements of bones, etc.

I'm sure one needs a LOT MORE to draw up the tree of life. I'm just asking for a resource to see for my own eyes the basics.

As for the life time of evidence, go to
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
Pick any branching point, such as
http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
and you'll see a list of names.
Go to scholar.google.com and type in the name, such as tetrapod transition. You will come back with hundreds of hits. Just go through the papers and you can easily find papers that talk about fossils that were found.

For example, I found,
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cg...0.1086/425183&erFrom=8544178434988106545Guest
This is a review, and while it might not have pictures, being a review, it lists hundreds of scientific papers that were used to build the review. Follow the papers cited, and continue on from there.

You might not be able to understand the language right away, but as all scientific fields, you need to learn the vocabulary before you can fully understand the evidence.

Like I and others have said, the evidence is there. I doubt you or anyone else can review all the evidence within their lifetime. The question is if you're actually willing to look for it, or do you only want it on a silver platter. If that's the case, good luck finding it, because science is a lot more than pretty pictures.

EDIT:

Also, I think it's rather silly to suggest a conspiracy exists to hide the evidence. That's why all scientific papers can be found and why they are published. If there really was a conspiracy to hide evidence, why print all these papers in journals. All it takes is one person with an inquistive mind to check the evidence. Don't you think one person would've easily found out about the conspiracy by now if that's the case? If anything, Creationists have something to hide. That's why they refuse to list evidence contrary to their beliefs. Any evidence that does not follow their interpretation is thrown out. Try doing that in science, and you'll lose your job.

I never suggested a conspiracy. I honestly just want to see some of the evidence with my own eyes that conclusions have been drawn from. I am one of those you mention with an "inquisitive mind" and I'm having trouble finding what you say is an overwhelming amount of evidence. I checked out the links you gave, and I see mostly artistic renderings of what the authors believe. Even the tetrapod one has one picture and then all these conclusions from it. The last link is not even accessible. Again, I'm not interested at this point in reading all the numerous "papers" that are laced with assumptions and language that is hard to understand. I don't even care about a couple of animals that share similar bones or traits. I would like to see a layout of actual fossils that demonstrate the progression of one species to another. It would also be nice to know about the different ones and how they were dated.

Just because there's a lot of paleontologists (who are educated to accept evolution as fact) out there writing papers for their own crowd, doesn't mean anything to me. I would have a hard time distinguishing what is fact and what is merely based on their worldview, especially when (as you say) the language is hard to understand.
I also don't need things just handed to me on a silver platter. I have looked, and I'm reporting that I can't find anything convincing in the way of something tangible that I can see.

It seems to me that the when we find fossils, they are in conditions that happened rather rapidly and capture groups of animals in sort of a time capsule. That process is non-discriminating, and if animals were going thru all these transitions, then we should find many of them captured in a transitional form. Why is it too much to ask to see some of these in pictures if they are so readily available and in such quantity? I am not trying to prove creationism here to anyone. I just want to see for myself what is so convincing to the contrary.

 

[gluadys]

In terms of transitional fossils, I will just point out that the lack of expected fossils were why various evolutionists support the concept of punctuated equilibrium.

That is not quite right. It is not that expected fossils were lacking. It was that the arrangement of transitional fossils in the fossil record was not what was expected in terms of classic phyletic gradualism. Instead of transitional fossils being found spread out more or less evenly through a species range and period of existence, they occurred in particular localities and particular time periods.

This was best explained by rapid allopatric speciation in a geographically isolated sub-population of the species followed by migration and replacement in the rest of the species range. The latter feature creates the illusion of a sudden jump from one species to another in some areas.

Niles Eldredge, Gould's partner in the promotion of punk eek, demonstrated the phenomenon in a population of trilobites, showing the transition that occurred in one area, followed by migration and replacement in other areas of the species range.

It should also be noted that the localities and time periods of these transitional punctuations were not the same for all species, and that some lineages do show the classic phyletic gradualism. Punk eek is not a universal phenomenon of the fossil record, but does explain some features of it.

Most importantly, it does not call for some yet undiscovered mechanism of evolution (not even of "macro-evolution"). It is explained by the same patterns of mutation and selection as phyletic change in general.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sure one needs a LOT MORE to draw up the tree of life. I'm just asking for a resource to see for my own eyes the basics. I never suggested a conspiracy. I honestly just want to see some of the evidence with my own eyes that conclusions have been drawn from. .... I checked out the links you gave, and I see mostly artistic renderings of what the authors believe. .... I would like to see a layout of actual fossils that demonstrate the progression of one species to another. It would also be nice to know about the different ones and how they were dated.

I wonder if part of the problem is your own perception of what evolution is. Misunderstandings of evolution can lead to expecting evidence of the wrong sort. And the failure of such evidence to turn up then reinforces the "fallibility" of evolutionary theory. Except it is not really a flaw in the science, but a flaw in a strawman version of the science.

I ask this because I am not sure what it is that you think should be so easy to see.

For example, the tol web-site already mentioned has an excellent series of pictures showing the transition from reptilian jaw-bones to mammalian ear-bones, including the phase of dual jaw joints.

Is your problem that these are drawings rather than photographs of the actual fossils?

What makes you think that uninterpreted pictures of fossils would enlighten the average layperson? Would you be able to identify the relevant bones from a photo of the fossil?

I ask because I generally find when looking at a photo of a fossil, or even a museum exhibit, that I need somebody to explain what I am looking at. My untrained eye cannot pick out the relevant features easily.

So I am not sure that the layout you are asking for would provide the enlightenment you are seeking.

Nevertheless, I do agree that the more exposure we have to existing fossils, especially key transitional fossils, the better.

It seems to me that the when we find fossils, they are in conditions that happened rather rapidly and capture groups of animals in sort of a time capsule. That process is non-discriminating, and if animals were going thru all these transitions, then we should find many of them captured in a transitional form. Why is it too much to ask to see some of these in pictures if they are so readily available and in such quantity? I am not trying to prove creationism here to anyone. I just want to see for myself what is so convincing to the contrary.[/SIZE]

This paragraph is the second reason I ask about your understanding of evolution. You are right in saying that every fossil find is sort of a time capsule. Fossils are always remnants of individual organisms that once lived, while evolution is a process of change in populations over time. So if you only have one example of a population, it cannot show the evolution that occurred in that population over several generations. You can only get a sense of the evolutionary change through finding several specimens from different generations. And that is not easy.

Also species to species transitions (which are really the only kind that happen in real life) often involve fairly minor changes--possibly, in some cases, changes in soft tissue, physiology or behavior that is not fossilized at all. So it is easier to find transitions at higher taxonomic levels (between families, orders or classes) than to find a species-to-species transition. At higher taxonomic levels, the differences are greater and the intermediate features easier to pick out.

So I am not sure what you mean by "capturing an animal in a transitional form". Since evolution is a change in a population, no individual makes a transition from one species to another in its own lifetime, in its own body. The best we can do is find fossils with features intermediate between ancestral species and newer species. And we certainly do have many fossils that exhibit intermediate form, especially at higher taxonomic levels. Fish to tetrapod, reptile to mammal, therapod to bird, the horse lineage, the whale lineage, early hominid to homo sapiens, not to mention innumerable marine invertebrates, they are all there.

One more thing. When we do have a fairly complete species to species series of transitional forms (and they do exist in some lineages of snails, clams and other shelled invertebrates) it is not possible to say where the old species ceases to be and the new species begins. Scientists have to choose where to draw the line that defines the new species. It is not obvious in nature. So if you are looking for a single fossil that defines the moment of transition, there is no such thing.

So what is really missing? Are you really looking for a figment of your imagination derived from misconceptions of evolutionary process?

 

[Mallon]

To deny the existence of transitional fossils is to display ignorance. Even supposedly infallible AiG warns against using this argument. keyarch, you seem genuinely interested in recognizing transitional fossils for yourself, so I can direct you to a good book on the subject -- Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. It's a bit outdated now, but it does a very thorough job detailing the the many transitional characters of all the various fossil groups. The earliest amphibians, for example, have exactly the same labyrinthodontine tooth structure as the most derived sarcopterygian fish (among literally dozens of other features). The earliest birds all have manual claws, teeth, and bony tails, just like theropod dinosaurs! The earliest described frog, Triadobatrachus, looks a lot like an early labyrinthodont amphibian with so many additional vertebrae! Probainognathus, a "mammal-like reptile", has two jaw joints -- one reptilian and one mammalian! The earliest mosasaurs look just like derived aigialosaurs! Indeed, we have transitional fossils for nearly every major vertebrate group (except for bats and turtles, off the top of my head). That isn't to say, however, that the chain is complete. The fossil record preserves but a fraction of all life that ever existed, and looks something like this:
A - - - - F G H - J - - L - - - Q R S - - V - X - Z
Of course gaps remain, but we continue to fill them in every day. I just finished describing a transitional plioplatecarpine grade mosasaur that will be published later this month in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. And my advisor is currently working on an even more basal frog that looks even more like labyrinthodont amphibians.
So you can't just say "there are no transitional fossils." They exist. And to deny it is dishonest.

 

[random_guy]

I'm sure one needs a LOT MORE to draw up the tree of life. I'm just asking for a resource to see for my own eyes the basics.I never suggested a conspiracy. I honestly just want to see some of the evidence with my own eyes that conclusions have been drawn from. I am one of those you mention with an "inquisitive mind" and I'm having trouble finding what you say is an overwhelming amount of evidence. I checked out the links you gave, and I see mostly artistic renderings of what the authors believe. Even the tetrapod one has one picture and then all these conclusions from it. The last link is not even accessible. Again, I'm not interested at this point in reading all the numerous "papers" that are laced with assumptions and language that is hard to understand. I don't even care about a couple of animals that share similar bones or traits. I would like to see a layout of actual fossils that demonstrate the progression of one species to another. It would also be nice to know about the different ones and how they were dated.

Just because there's a lot of paleontologists (who are educated to accept evolution as fact) out there writing papers for their own crowd, doesn't mean anything to me. I would have a hard time distinguishing what is fact and what is merely based on their worldview, especially when (as you say) the language is hard to understand.
I also don't need things just handed to me on a silver platter. I have looked, and I'm reporting that I can't find anything convincing in the way of something tangible that I can see.

It seems to me that the when we find fossils, they are in conditions that happened rather rapidly and capture groups of animals in sort of a time capsule. That process is non-discriminating, and if animals were going thru all these transitions, then we should find many of them captured in a transitional form. Why is it too much to ask to see some of these in pictures if they are so readily available and in such quantity? I am not trying to prove creationism here to anyone. I just want to see for myself what is so convincing to the contrary.

The problem is, I don't think you really are trying. It's not up to the scientists to convince you that evolution occurs. There is no debate in the scientific community on whether evolution happens or not. There is debate on what pathways were taken. If you want an easy to understand picture progression, you'll have to build one yourself from the evidence since no scientist is willing to waste their time convincing someone evolution happens just like no scientist is willing to waste their time convincing people the world is a sphere.

If you followed my links, the review (which you can easily access from a university) mentions a transitional fossil, pederpes finneyae. If you google image search the fossil, you get an image. Remember, all fossils are "transitional" unless it results in a dead branch. The reason why we have diagrams to help better understand the connection. I highly doubt you're trained well enough to understand the transitional aspects of this picture:



What about this picture? Can you understand what this means?


The evidence is out there. The question is whether you actually have the intellectual integrity to search for the evidence, rather then give up because it's too hard to find/understand. I'm not a paleontologist or biologist, but I was easily able to find this information. If you think they're purposely hiding it, why was I able to do so?

If you want to prove evolution wrong, start by building your own scientific review. Go through the process I mentioned. Take a review paper, follow the citations, and search for images of the fossils. If it sounds like too much work, then you're really in no position to critize the work of scientists who dedicate their lives studying the material.

 

[random_guy]

I am aware that you refuse to believe and that the simple facts of Scripture will never convince you. I know it and you know it as you have stated. You do not believe Moses and the prophets and you will not believe though One rose from the dead.

Yeah, because we all know that only True Christians (tm) must believe in a Young Earth and Creationism, even though it flies against all knowledge and is not mentioned anywhere in the Nicene Creed. That's a great response.

Us: Pages of explanations on why scientific evidence shows your beliefs are unscientific.
Creationists: "That's because you're not real Christians!"

I'm sure you also accept the simple truths of a flat Earth and geocentrism as promoted in the Bible.

 

[laptoppop]

Please remember that there are those of us that believe that someone can be a great, godly Christian and believe in TE. They're mistaken of course <grin> -- but hey, we're all mistaken in one way or another (except me).

There are also those of us who think that the physical evidence (strata) is totally consistent with the straightforward reading of the Biblical account (flood).

I repeat my offer -- if I'm wrong about YEC, the first round of Root Beers in heaven is on me.

 

[pastorkevin73]

The word "evolution" can be used in 2 way, and there should really be 2 different words to avoid the confusion. Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on how you use the word.

First I must clarify what a theory is. Many ppl think that theory is somewhat less then a fact, that once a theory is proven it becomes a fact. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Facts are observable things around us, and a theory is how we explain those things. Like the fact that gravity exists, that's an observable fact. But what causes it? The theory of relativity is the best explanation thus far for gravity. A theory can be even more important then the fact. We know that we are affected by gravity (fact), but it's understanding how and why (theory) that really helps us learn.

In reguards to evolution, it is a fact that life on earth has evolved. As we go deeper and deeper into the layers of strata within the earth, we see changes in the life forms that existed. Entirely new sets of ecosystems existed in the past. It is a fact that we evolved.

The theory of evolution is how we try to explain that fact. Darwin had the idea of phyletic gradualism. (Although it may have been he expected more our current models, but that's another topic). Currently our understanding of evolution leads us to believe in punctuated equilibrium. All the mechanisms for this to have happened are observed in nature today, and they happen even faster then the fossil record requires.

I saw some threads about the use of the word "theory" so I hope this clears some things up.

Nice try, but no evolution is not fact. It is only an interpretation of some data. Not to mention the ToE changes (some evolutionists admit this). Not all scientist conclude that evolution is fact.

 

[plainswolf]

The word "evolution" can be used in 2 way, and there should really be 2 different words to avoid the confusion. Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on how you use the word.

First I must clarify what a theory is. Many ppl think that theory is somewhat less then a fact, that once a theory is proven it becomes a fact. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Facts are observable things around us, and a theory is how we explain those things. Like the fact that gravity exists, that's an observable fact. But what causes it? The theory of relativity is the best explanation thus far for gravity. A theory can be even more important then the fact. We know that we are affected by gravity (fact), but it's understanding how and why (theory) that really helps us learn.

In reguards to evolution, it is a fact that life on earth has evolved. As we go deeper and deeper into the layers of strata within the earth, we see changes in the life forms that existed. Entirely new sets of ecosystems existed in the past. It is a fact that we evolved.

The theory of evolution is how we try to explain that fact. Darwin had the idea of phyletic gradualism. (Although it may have been he expected more our current models, but that's another topic). Currently our understanding of evolution leads us to believe in punctuated equilibrium. All the mechanisms for this to have happened are observed in nature today, and they happen even faster then the fossil record requires.

I saw some threads about the use of the word "theory" so I hope this clears some things up.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking The Evolution Challenge

""CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that all we see in the universe is a result of natural transformism (or even intermittent supernatural transformism). If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI.

The specific question on the table in regard to the $1,000 Challenge is this:

It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA. It is also a fact that in order to produce a fish, a bird, or an animal from an upward progression of biological material, the fish or bird or animal must somehow acquire the genetic material needed for its species. That being the case, can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed? If anyone can prove this process to us by the known facts of science, consider yourself the winner of $1,000 from CAI!

You can submit your "proofs" regarding the above question to our e-mail address cairomeo@aol.com. We will then offer a response. Both your "proof" and our response will be posted on the CAI Science Page on our website. If you do not want your actual name listed, we will change your name, but your contents will be posted. If you do not want either your name or your contents posted, then you are not eligible for a reply from CAI nor the $1,000 reward. CAI will be the sole judge of whether you have successfully proven your case. But since CAI is built on its reputation of honesty and truthfulness, rest assured that if you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money.

Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Darwin, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.

The $1,000 Challenge will go on indefinitely. If you're up for the challenge, take your best shot!

Robert Sungenis Ph.D
Catholic Apologetics International
May 7, 2002""


+

 

[Jase]

Nice try, but no evolution is not fact. It is only an interpretation of some data. Not to mention the ToE changes (some evolutionists admit this). Not all scientist conclude that evolution is fact.

All science changes when new data presents itself. That's how science works. And yes, evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact. The fact of evolution means it happens. We've observed adaptation, we've observed speciation. It is just as much of a fact as dropping a ball, and it hitting the ground means gravity is a fact.

The Theory of evolution concerns the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Did you know Gravity is also a theory? The Theory of gravity concerns the mechanisms by which dropping that ball makes it hit the ground. Did you also know that the Theory of evolution has more evidence and support than the theory of gravity?

I don't get why creationists get so upset over the idea that evolution is a fact. It has been observed!

 

[pastorkevin73]

All science changes when new data presents itself. That's how science works. And yes, evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact. The fact of evolution means it happens. We've observed adaptation, we've observed speciation. It is just as much of a fact as dropping a ball, and it hitting the ground means gravity is a fact.

The Theory of evolution concerns the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Did you know Gravity is also a theory? The Theory of gravity concerns the mechanisms by which dropping that ball makes it hit the ground. Did you also know that the Theory of evolution has more evidence and support than the theory of gravity?

I don't get why creationists get so upset over the idea that evolution is a fact. It has been observed!

Sorr, I missed the world news that said that evolution is fact. As I understand the scientific community are not in 100% in argement of su ch a claim.

BTW, don't confuse being upset with passion. Actually creationist are no more passionate than evolutionists.

 

[Jase]

Sorr, I missed the world news that said that evolution is fact. As I understand the scientific community are not in 100% in argement of su ch a claim.

It's a fact that evolution occurs as much as anything can be a fact. If you accept gravity, by comparison you should accept evolution since evolution has more evidence.

 

[Jadis40]

It's a fact that evolution occurs as much as anything can be a fact. If you accept gravity, by comparison you should accept evolution since evolution has more evidence.

I'm currently reading The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean Carroll.

Highly recommended book.

 

[plainswolf]

All science changes when new data presents itself. That's how science works. And yes, evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact.

A poor analogy, gravity is a constant, yet according to you the 'fact' of evolution is only relative to the current evidence of the moment, and could possibly change with new evidence.

The Theory of evolution concerns the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Did you know Gravity is also a theory? The Theory of gravity concerns the mechanisms by which dropping that ball makes it hit the ground. Did you also know that the Theory of evolution has more evidence and support than the theory of gravity?

I don't get why creationists get so upset over the idea that evolution is a fact. It has been observed!

As I said elswhere, I'm on the fence as so to speak, I can't seem to pigeonhole myself strictly into YEC or TE, and I'm quite new to this debate, but so far I've encountered far more harshness from evolutionists towards creationists than the other way around. Why do some evolutionists display such an irrational dislike or hatred for anyone who might espouse a different view? So a person wants to believe Scripture above all else, who cares. Perhaps they might even add some kind of beneficial contribution. Personally I'll look at any good evidence, regardless whether it is from or about YEC or TE. I'm just trying to see both sides.



+

 

[Melethiel]

Poke around the forum a bit, you'll see harshness coming from both sides.