I'm also constantly surprised by the number of biology and psychology teachers, even in the general population of educators, who turn out to be closet flat-earthers. It's not quite up to the level of a conspiracy, but it sure is disturbing and suspicious.

"Steven"

Puleeze Steven, spare us your logical leap over a chasm you've nearly fallen into and broken your neck. Check out the website of the Creation Research Society's board of directors, and look at the credentials. Was it possibly the astronomer with a Ph. D. you accuse of being a "flat-earther?" These are not exactly, wild-eyed, flame-breathing, evangelical, fanatic has-been preachers from Little Rock Chapel.

Here's their degrees, with names omitted...

Ph.D. Microbiology, Kansas State University

M.S. Biology, ICR Graduate School

Ph.D. Physical Geography, Univ. of Michigan

Ph.D. Physics, Oklahoma State Univ.

Ph.D. Physics, Iowa State Univ.

Ph.D. Astronomy, Indiana Univ.

Ph.D. Botany, Ohio State Univ.

Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State Univ.

Research Physicist, Sandia National Laboratories (retired)

Ph.D. Anatomy, Univ. of Iowa

Ph. D. Computer Science, Nova Southeastern University

M.S. in Atmospheric Science, Univ. of Washington

Lead forecaster, National Weather Service

Ph.D. Geology, Univ. of South Carolina

Ph.D. Mathematics, Illinois Inst. of Technology

Ph.D. Physics, Clemson Univ.

Ph.D., Animal Science, Univ. of Mo.

Now, would you care to match your own training/background to this list, and then grace with us your all-wise patronizing analogy once more?

toptuan, are you saying that you think creationism is science?

toptuan, are you saying that you think creationism is science?

Sorry, you're not going to draw me into that. :-) This isn't about me. I'm just asking you to look at the sort of supposedly "unscientific" people who hold to it. What do you make of it?

Let me preface my post with an exposure of my personal biases. I don't particularly believe in God and I'm more buddhist than anything else.

I'm often amused when people who are atheistically anti-Christian, or at least negative about Christianity, post about how closed minded and unscientific Christians are. Then, many of these same people in other threads, post about how Thai schools don't instill kids with independent thinking, they don't teach kids to think for themselves. They suggest that Thai schools should be more like schools in Christian countries where they teach students to ask questions and think for themselves. Then they suggest that these Thai schools really ought to hire more teachers from Christian countries (farangs) because the buddhist local teachers are just not up to snuff.

toptuan, are you saying that you think creationism is science?

Sorry, you're not going to draw me into that. :-) This isn't about me. I'm just asking you to look at the sort of supposedly "unscientific" people who hold to it. What do you make of it?

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to draw you into anything. I was just shocked by the creation research website you got the the people with 'impressive' degrees from. A direct quote from the site:

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

In other words you must accept things on faith. More than that, you must accept a radical fundamentalist Christian view. Further, you must accept things as truth that have no evidence to support them. This is the antithesis of science. Science is about basing your theories on the best evidence available.

The fact that people with Phd's subscribe to these views is of no consequence--by accepting things on faith they go against the basic principles of science. Graduating with an 'impressive' degree doesn't mean that the rest of your life you'll make good choices.

Toptuan, biology is a science. That means it follows the scientific method. One lesser-appreciated aspect of the way the scientific method generates scientific truths is the acceptance of a community of learners (i.e., scientists)- this means that while there are competing theories, science (and scientific truth itself) is temporarily in flux. The last time this was seriously the case AMONG SCIENTISTS in reference to basic Darwinism was in the early to mid-twentieth century, when Lamarck's theories were pretty much definitively squashed by common agreement of academics in favour of radical Darwinism (you can give credit to a man named Ernst Mayr for that; I was lucky enough to meet him a few years ago- very, very old man then and still didn't mind wasting his time jousting with local flat-earther types). [Editorial note- just searched for him and it appears he died back in 2005- RIP, another great one has gone]

Nothing that I've seen in "creationism" or "intelligent design" (as it is being re-styled) gives an indication of presenting and testing a testable, negatable hypothesis- one of the basic tenets of the scientific method. Therefore there is no sense in dolling it up; those things are not science (whatever it is they are). And I've met enough fools with letters after their names (including a creationist biologist who admitted he was only bothering with biology so that he could try to "disprove" evolution) not to be impressed by those letters when they make foolish statements. Heck, even Thaksin has a Ph.D, right?

I don't know what interest exactly you have vested in flat-earthism or creationism or "intelligent" design or whatever other euphemism labels it these days, but the only thing more foolish than your defending it *as a science* or your asking me to post potentially identifying personal information on an *internet forum* would be if I actually did that. I'm not threatened by or impressed with your roster or its website in the least; the argument fails on the question of scientific method and merit, not on the credentials of its acolytes.

"Steven"

P.S. *Regarding* your roster, I find it amusing how many of the degrees come from certain states- like Kansas, Montana, Iowa, Oklahoma- not exactly known for their great understanding of the scientific method as applied to biology. Those who are unfamiliar with the now infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster letter (demanding the teaching of an alternative form of the "intelligent design" theory) to the Kansas School board may get a chuckle.

And finally (had to go to sleep last night!), I think that the UK government's attitude towards what does or does not constitute science as a topic of education deserves quoting (click here for the petition which elicited this response).

The Government remains committed ensuring that young people have an understanding of the importance of science and the world around them.

Science is a core subject of the National Curriculum throughout every Key Stage. The National Curriculum secures for all pupils, irrespective of background and ability, an entitlement to a range of areas of learning. Its aim is to develop the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary for each pupil's self-fulfilment and development as an active and responsible citizen. It makes expectations for learning and attainment explicit to pupils, parents, teachers, governors, employers and the public, and establishes national standards for the performance of all pupils. All materials that support the teaching, learning and assessment of primary and secondary education, can be found on the National Curriculum website (new window).

The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. The science programmes of study set out the legal requirements of the science National Curriculum. They focus on the nature of science as a subject discipline, including what constitutes scientific evidence and how this is established. Students learn about scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge with extensive supporting evidence, and how evidence can form the basis for experimentation to test hypotheses. In this context, the Government would expect teachers to answer pupils' questions about creationism, intelligent design, and other religious beliefs within this scientific framework.

The bolded words are my emphasis.

...biology is a science. That means it follows the scientific method....Nothing that I've seen in "creationism" or "intelligent design" (as it is being re-styled) gives an indication of presenting and testing a testable, negatable hypothesis- one of the basic tenets of the scientific method.

Your claim that it departs from the scientific method is a tacit admission you haven't read the literature and are acting on hearsay. Using the scientific method, it works primarily from empirical evidence in astronomy, paleontogy and geological data as does the evolutionary model.

Unfortunately, the evolutionary model (which I assume you automatically lump into biology) seems to depart more often from true science as it seems quite happy to tolerate logical and chronological gaps which require even larger leaps of faith to maintain the evolutionary hypothesis.

lesser-appreciated aspect of the way the scientific method generates scientific truths is the acceptance of a community of learners (i.e., scientists)

Have you checked into the growth of the "other" persuasion over the last 45 years? Your argument fails at this point, because it also supports what's happening in the scientific community with the ID model.

The last time this was seriously the case AMONG SCIENTISTS in reference to basic Darwinism was in the early to mid-twentieth century, when Lamarck's theories were pretty much definitively squashed

You're out of touch with the current scene, Steven, I'm sorry to say. The court cases have multiplied exponentially, particularly over the last 15 years as both sides continue to battle it out in the US. Both sides continue to bring their expert witnesses before the public eye. Rather than "dismissing" the issue with your 70-year-old case, the situation has become much more complex and convoluted.

And I've met enough fools with letters after their names (including a creationist biologist who admitted he was only bothering with biology so that he could try to "disprove" evolution) not to be impressed by those letters when they make foolish statements. Heck, even Thaksin has a Ph.D, right?

Again your argument offers nothing---we can both dredge up Ph.D. fools from both sides of the aisle. The only difference is that you're claiming a majority of fools on one side. Your unsubstantiated opinion.

P.S. *Regarding* your roster, I find it amusing how many of the degrees come from certain states- like Kansas, Montana, Iowa, Oklahoma- not exactly known for their great understanding of the scientific method....

Oh, how did The Illinois Institute of Technology, The University of Washington, The University of Michigan seem to conveniently slip your mind? Or was it a case of selective amnesia? Your argument was at best a small-minded provincial slur. You should visit these midwest and southern states...things have really changed since the 1930's; running water, electricity, sliced bread....and oh, NASA, The Fermi National Accelerator, The CDC, etc.

I wonder how Al Gore or a long list of Nobel Laureates would feel about your brief dismissal of their regions as a source of serious scholars and scientists? Recent Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Economics and Medicine have come from or were educated in: Virginia (2), Michigan, Ohio (3), Texas, Illinois, Wichita Kansas (OMG!), etc.

You probably should quickly contact the Nobel Prize committee, and warn them about dredging the bottom of the barrel from these intellectually disadvantaged States of the Union. The Committee members are obviously poor judges of pedigree and definitely aren't aware of the dreaded "tainted by geographic association" principle.

Ergo: In your comments I find little solid argument; but heavy on intellectual bias and pompous provincial arrogance. (gotta watch that "PPA", shows up in even the nicest of guys, sometimes... )

Sadly, toptuan people consider that evolution is a science, but, then when you get down to the nitti gritti of it all, you will find that you need more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation.

For me to acknowledge an almighty God is easier that to try and figure out the anomalies of unsubstantiated evolution theory. In recent times Creationism has become a very favorite whipping horse, for those that don't know both sides of the story and ALL the facts!

Trust in God, does even me a bad banker!

Badbanker

I learned long ago that you can't have a "scientific" debate with religious zealots. The axioms of truth are too different. And it never profits one much to argue with someone who feels so threatened they have to make personal remarks and comments rather than discuss commonly understood definitions and principles, such as what science means. Education is clearly needed not only among students, but also among the teachers.

I'm splitting this debate into a Bedlam thread (in case the Bedlamites are wondering where it came from). This tangent, while fodder for interesting discussion, doesn't belong in the Teacher's Room.

"Steven"

I learned long ago that you can't have a "scientific" debate with religious zealots. The axioms of truth are too different. And it never profits one much to argue with someone who feels so threatened they have to make personal remarks and comments rather than discuss commonly understood definitions and principles, such as what science means. Education is clearly needed not only among students, but also among the teachers.

I'm splitting this debate into a Bedlam thread (in case the Bedlamites are wondering where it came from). This tangent, while fodder for interesting discussion, doesn't belong in the Teacher's Room.

"Steven"

religious zealots - Yes, those personal remarks and comments do proliferate, don't they? We all know the stereotype you are trying to paint other posters with here--pretty broad stroke, I'd say.

Bedlam thread - that's for the crazy people, right? Another dismissal with a wave of the keyboard wand?

doesn't belong in the Teacher's Room. - methods of teaching about origins? Your biased "colors" are showing. :-)

Won't belabor this issue any further as you are obviously trying to shut it down; but thanks for making it clear how open your mind may or may not be to alternative hypotheses of origins. If you can't enter the fray, then try to poison the well...

To the best of my knowledge creationism and intelligent design are not science....in the past I have asked people who think they are to come up with some scientifically collected data that supports either of them...or some hypothesis which can tested in relationship to either of them...or anything similar that can be used to support the idea that either of them is science....but...no one has ever come up with any. I would appreciate it greatly if someone would give me a link to something like this.

I could claim that as a rice farmer I look at mud alot and there is a science of predicting the future from carefully scrutinizing the mud. If I claimed this you would be sceptical and certainly would want to see alot of evidence to support my claim that mud reading is a sciencebefore you accepted this to be true. You would want some data or some testable hyposthesis with data collected that supports it...or SOMETHING before you would claim that mud reading is a science. I'm just applying the same concept to creatiionism and intelligent design....show me something that supports the notion that they are science please...and please do remember that just making claims and statements does not a science make.

Having a bunch of people with graduate degrees agree with something does not make it a science either....in fact phd's are a dime a dozen these days and without seeing what these people are producing inre science you can not seperate the sheep from the goats.

Chownah

Steven. Toptuan,

I gather this stems from a general forum thread?

There's a PM function, you know?

Steven. Toptuan,

I gather this stems from a general forum thread?

There's a PM function, you know?

Yeah, but with PM method, no audience to take sides and root for you!

Sadly, toptuan people consider that evolution is a science, but, then when you get down to the nitti gritti of it all, you will find that you need more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation.

For me to acknowledge an almighty God is easier that to try and figure out the anomalies of unsubstantiated evolution theory. In recent times Creationism has become a very favorite whipping horse, for those that don't know both sides of the story and ALL the facts!

Trust in God, does even me a bad banker!

Badbanker

Most Bedlamites know that I am a Christian who believes in a literal 6 day creation. I'm stating it again in case some of the newbies don't know.

Taking up Badbanker's point. Both positions are positions of faith. The problems begin when theories are espoused as fact. No, they are theories, and many of the theories contradict each other (as do the views of some creationists) and that's fine, we are all entitled to our beliefs. I have researched these subjects for many years, attending debates, reading books, etc, and I have made my choice which I believe we should all do.

Another thing though, as stated in a previous thread about the bible, let's remain civilised and respect each others differences. We can discuss these things without getting nasty.

A wise man once said;

"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.

He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. messin' with our heads?

I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."

[mimes God burying fossils]

"I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."

Bill Hicks

Life as a concept, is so complex, it needs belief to get the average head around the basics.

I am not in the religious camp. But hope I am a pragmatist, enough to accept, I just do't know.

I can not come to terms with the hurt of the innocent, enough to accept religion. But try to understand the solace that religion gives to many.

nah mate. Forget it. We should all be able to drink beer together without getting into the whole Religious debate.

And if you don't agree with me, then you're all idiots and will burn in hel__l. When we get round to creating it.

A wise man once said;

"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.

He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. messin' with our heads?

I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."

[mimes God burying fossils]

"I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."

Bill Hicks

Well that view is just plain silly! Of course the dinosaurs existed and roamed the earth and no person, scientist or lay person, can say how they were wiped out. However, you could quote views from all sorts of nutters who hold the most silly views but that never helps a discussion.

I'll tell you an even funnier one. I once had a Christian say that dinosaurs were a result of genetic enginering! Oh yeah, I can just see stoneage man with his bunsen burner and test tube rustle up a T-Rex! What for? So there all sorts of nutters out there! No, dinosaurs were part of the original creation!

Bedlam thread - that's for the crazy people, right?

Hey you, i resemble that remark

The earth is neither flat nor round. It's all bumpy and got hills and water and stuff, so it's not flat. And if it where round the water would fall out, you lemon

MrBoJ Phd (Proper headache day)

I have an MSc in Training in Training & Development. I got it for My Silly Contribution!

A wise man once said;

"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.

He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. messin' with our heads?

I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."

[mimes God burying fossils]

"I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."

Bill Hicks

Well that view is just plain silly! Of course the dinosaurs existed and roamed the earth and no person, scientist or lay person, can say how they were wiped out. However, you could quote views from all sorts of nutters who hold the most silly views but that never helps a discussion.

I'll tell you an even funnier one. I once had a Christian say that dinosaurs were a result of genetic enginering! Oh yeah, I can just see stoneage man with his bunsen burner and test tube rustle up a T-Rex! What for? So there all sorts of nutters out there! No, dinosaurs were part of the original creation!

Of course it's silly, it's Bill hicks.

You say that it is debatable as to how dinosaurs were wiped out, but there is some pretty hard evidence not only as to how they were wiped out but also as to how they came about and none of it involves God, you offer an obviously off the wall theory as to how they we're created perhaps as a way of discrediting anyone that may have an opinion that differs from any form of theistic explaination, but you don't offer your own opinion as to how they came about, pehaps I might find your theory 'silly'.

Point is though the creationist theory is being promoted by religious types and right wing politicians and it is a backlash against the harsh realities of scientific fact.

It is for people who want easy answers or who don't want you to think for yourself.

Christians now find it impossible to argue against evolution using a biblical time scale so have found a new answer to to defy reality 'intelligent design'.

You'll never find the answer to God Life, the universe and everything

now you can ... Douglas Adams

PS. HEY! what happened to the sentence I quoted from Rob's??? once I was done...it had disappeared from his above post?? huh?!?

I think that those who profess to understand the purpose of the human race and how our environment was "created" must be putting on a huge set of blinkers to ignore the small detail that we inhabit a planet in a back-water solar system in a back-water galaxy with a whole lot of stuff going on out there in the big world (planets , stars even galaxies being created and destroyed).

Bit like Mutt and Jeff in the Butthole (Arkansas) barber shop theorising on the universe.

Everybody knows that the dinosaurs became extinct because they were too heavy and sank the <deleted> ark and Noah didn't have any life jackets in their size.

well said miGgie

D.N.A : "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

You'll never find the answer to God Life, the universe and everything

now you can ... Douglas Adams

PS. HEY! what happened to the sentence I quoted from Rob's??? once I was done...it had disappeared from his above post?? huh?!?

I went back and edited it out, for the sake of world, well bedlam peace. You know how the natives can get restless.

well said miGgie

D.N.A : "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

and on that note, so long and thanks for all the fish.

well said miGgie

D.N.A : "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

and on that note, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Leave it to kayo to hold out on the wine.

A wise man once said;

"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.

He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. messin' with our heads?

I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."

[mimes God burying fossils]

"I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."

Bill Hicks

Well that view is just plain silly! Of course the dinosaurs existed and roamed the earth and no person, scientist or lay person, can say how they were wiped out. However, you could quote views from all sorts of nutters who hold the most silly views but that never helps a discussion.

I'll tell you an even funnier one. I once had a Christian say that dinosaurs were a result of genetic enginering! Oh yeah, I can just see stoneage man with his bunsen burner and test tube rustle up a T-Rex! What for? So there all sorts of nutters out there! No, dinosaurs were part of the original creation!

Of course it's silly, it's Bill hicks.

You say that it is debatable as to how dinosaurs were wiped out, but there is some pretty hard evidence not only as to how they were wiped out but also as to how they came about and none of it involves God, you offer an obviously off the wall theory as to how they we're created perhaps as a way of discrediting anyone that may have an opinion that differs from any form of theistic explaination, but you don't offer your own opinion as to how they came about, pehaps I might find your theory 'silly'.

Point is though the creationist theory is being promoted by religious types and right wing politicians and it is a backlash against the harsh realities of scientific fact.

It is for people who want easy answers or who don't want you to think for yourself.

Christians now find it impossible to argue against evolution using a biblical time scale so have found a new answer to to defy reality 'intelligent design'.

Please read my posts before replying Robski, otherwise your own blinkered view obscures what I am saying! I believe in creation, I believe that dinosaurs et al, were created by God - not some whacky theory. How they were wiped out is not known by anyone! Some scientists say a massive meteorite, some hold with a worlwide catastrophe. It doesn't matter.

Creation is not being put forward as a backlash against the harsh realities of scientific fact. (please re-read your own sentence to see how patronising it could be perceived to be!) Evolution has no scientific fact, only theory and speculation.

Like I said already it is as much (if not more) a position of Faith as believing in a literal creation. If you just accept that we can move on...

Believe what you want but don't evangelise your own un-Godly beliefs on others - it's a waste of all our time.

A wise man once said;

"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.

He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. messin' with our heads?

I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."

[mimes God burying fossils]

"I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."

Bill Hicks

Well that view is just plain silly! Of course the dinosaurs existed and roamed the earth and no person, scientist or lay person, can say how they were wiped out. However, you could quote views from all sorts of nutters who hold the most silly views but that never helps a discussion.

I'll tell you an even funnier one. I once had a Christian say that dinosaurs were a result of genetic enginering! Oh yeah, I can just see stoneage man with his bunsen burner and test tube rustle up a T-Rex! What for? So there all sorts of nutters out there! No, dinosaurs were part of the original creation!

Of course it's silly, it's Bill hicks.

You say that it is debatable as to how dinosaurs were wiped out, but there is some pretty hard evidence not only as to how they were wiped out but also as to how they came about and none of it involves God, you offer an obviously off the wall theory as to how they we're created perhaps as a way of discrediting anyone that may have an opinion that differs from any form of theistic explaination, but you don't offer your own opinion as to how they came about, pehaps I might find your theory 'silly'.

Point is though the creationist theory is being promoted by religious types and right wing politicians and it is a backlash against the harsh realities of scientific fact.

It is for people who want easy answers or who don't want you to think for yourself.

Christians now find it impossible to argue against evolution using a biblical time scale so have found a new answer to to defy reality 'intelligent design'.

Please read my posts before replying Robski, otherwise your own blinkered view obscures what I am saying! I believe in creation, I believe that dinosaurs et al, were created by God - not some whacky theory. How they were wiped out is not known by anyone! Some scientists say a massive meteorite, some hold with a worlwide catastrophe. It doesn't matter.

How long ago do you believe that God created them? Did that come about through evolution or intelligent design?

Creation is not being put forward as a backlash against the harsh realities of scientific fact. (please re-read your own sentence to see how patronising it could be perceived to be!) Evolution has no scientific fact, only theory and speculation.

Creationist theory. Patronising? 'otherwise your own blinkered view obscures what I am saying'

'Evolution has no scientific fact' LOL Evolution is scientific fact, the weight of proof I feel is on the side of science not religion.

Like I said already it is as much (if not more) a position of Faith as believing in a literal creation. If you just accept that we can move on...

Accept that you can't accept concrete evidence? Sure I can accept that.

Believe what you want but don't evangelise your own un-Godly beliefs on others - it's a waste of all our time.

all our time? Sure... Whatever.

As an afterword suegha my intention is not to get your hackles up, I did read your posts.

You are defending a position put up by toptuan and for whatever reason he chose to post the topic let him debate it.