Sorry that's not an acceptable answer. You require more from creationists so by your own standards that's not good enough.
Actually Inan, we require SOMETHING from the Creationists. They are so sorely lacking in even basic science literacy anything like a fact supported by evidence or data untainted by faulty analysis would be a great boon.
No I don't. There has been plenty of evidence given but you don't want to accept it. You have your minds all made up and set. The only double standard I have seen is from your side of the debate.
Well it only appears that way to you because you have no science background. Maybe if you understood science just a bit better you'd be able to see that scientists would gladly engage you in scientific discussions. But the Creationists on this board are so woefully behind on fundamental science literacy, let alone topics like abiogenesis and the biochemistry incumbent on that, that we end up having to spend all our time giving them the 1st grader version of it. (Why do you think evolution debates always wind up discussing abiogenesis which technically isn't even an evolution topic!)
Learning is a good thing, but because so few Creationists actually seem
capable of learning or seem so very resistant to learning, it's frustrating.
If there are books of evidence as you say and you can't take one piece of that evidence and use it to show evidence for evolution than I doubt that any of it can be put together.
But likely Creationists will do what creationists on this board always do and that is simply ignore it. Mainly because they don't understand it.
Take the issue of homochirality of biologically active compounds as has been trotted out numerous times on this board (I'll repost the link:
here for the zillionth time).
Funny how that is really interesting and germane to abiogenesis, but I've never seen a Creationist on this board yet who ever commented on it once it was posted.
That's probably because a relatively straightforward bit of science simply goes over their heads.
That's not a bad thing. They know things I couldn't start to understand. But I don't expect them to distill the massive amount of information they have available down to one little sentence.
It would necessarily be oversimplified and nearly useless.
That's what MoonLancer is getting at. You want a simple 1st grader type answer and it ain't gonna be easy. You think that because you can
disagree with the science that that means you somehow
understand the science. But Creationists and YEC simply, usually, don't.
If they do, and if you are a gung-ho science geek, please respond in ways that reassure us that you know about what you seem to speak against.
It only shows that you have a bunch of data that can only be tied together by surmising this and assuming that. You use the tales of evolution to do this. This is why you struggle so much to protect the ToE because if it is not there you don't know how to present the data. It's a good story but not complete enough for evidence.
No, in reality you would be surprised at how we
don't have to struggle to defend the ToE. It simply is an accepted fact, as accepted and factual as just about any
theory is. It's a good strong theory and a good strong data set.
YOU and the other Creationists who
don't understand it are the only ones people have to "struggle against" and thankfully most of you don't have anything to do with professional science. You are, for lack of a more kind word, meaningless to science. What
does scare us is that you want to forcefeed your
religion as science to children, or demand that
valid science not be taught because you don't understand it and it makes you feel "icky" or makes you afraid your God is in danger.
Neither of which is remotely valid. Most Christians are evolution-friendly anyway.
Again, Creationists are like screaming children. Just one in a crowded room sounds really loud and annoying but in fact really is just a screaming child who doesn't understand all the important stuff going on around them.
Wow that was funny!
