You wrote, ‘Nothing about evolution is an either / or about god. Most of the people in the bio dept here are christians.’
You wrote, ‘Your list is almost entirely of people in different fields. Like we dont ask doctors to hold forth on geology.’
You wrote, 'NONE of them has data point one against evolution'.
I can get that information for you as well. I believe I gave an honest representation of the people and events working together in support of Creationism.
You wrote, 'ALL of them take their position for religious not scientific reasons.'
I read your last statement 4 times. I don't see any other way to read it. Or did I miss the obvious meaning, and do I need a light-bulb moment?
ak.
I’ll be reading you.
Have fun and be nice.
I’m sorry I offended you. Are you a Christian? I’ve been a Minister for 18 years, and although I am honest in my expression as a Minister, it had not occurred to me to debate Christianity. This is a scientific discussion, isn’t it?
If you have evidence from your own research that you would like to share supporting Evolution, I would be genuinely interested, and I promise to be respectful.
No offense taken! i should be careful not to sound as if I might be.
Nope, not a Christian. It seemed to me you had said something about a conflict between evolution and religion / christianity, and I said it has nothing to do with religion.
I will be glad to answer quesitons, I dont feel like presenting a treatise on evolution tho.
I was under the impression that so many Scientists from so many fields of study – coming together with a common interest and goal, while supporting and aiding each other in their findings was incredibly impressive. Would a list of only Biologists and Paleontologists have been more credible? I can get that list for you if you like.
In what findings?
And honestly you can list away, people with
opinions. A person with some actual data, tho, you cannot find. Not with data point one that would in any way falsify evolution. is creation somehow incompatible with evolution?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read your last sentence as though you write that 100+ Scientists, including Quantum Physicists, Astrophysicists, Biologists, and Astronomers, from places including MIT, Perdue, Cambridge, UCLA, and NASA; having among them Nobel Prize Winners, base all their theories, Scientific findings, published works, debates, and lectures on ‘religious not scientific reasons’?
No you sure did not read me right.
When I said "their position" I meant in opposition to the reality of evolution. And I will gladly restate it, in another way.
Nobody, whether scientist, bum, preacher or internet warrior has one single fact to his name to use to falsify evolution.
People reject if for ignorance or it, or for religious reasons. There is no data based scientific reason to reject it. If you teach otherwise you are teaching falsehoods.
So I hope that you dont.
Good luck to everyone in the discussion. I hope all debaters and research junkies (including myself) are quick to hear and slow to speak.
No reason not to get along.
edited..
i guess your main pint with all those researchers etc was that they consider certain things to be evidence of "creation".
For myself, I dont need a list; the properties of water alone are so remarkable that it does and properly should give a person pause.
i dont see any reason at all that there
could not be a creator, who figured out the necessary qualities for a working universe, and set things going.
nothing about that precludes the reality of evolution, id think rather its a bit of an insult or slight to the capabilities of said creator that he'd have to constantly meddle with his creation to get it to work, like with a British car.
if someone wants to say behold, this is evidence of a creator, fine, I dont agree, but nothing can be proven anyway in this regard.
if someone wants to teach that evolution is false, and that they have evidence that it is false, I say show me and when they cant, i call fraud and humbug.
