Going to bed now.
A quick cursory scan notes the lack of any scientific rebuttal, beyond a link to a creationist webpage that falls back upon the already-discredited notion of 'irreducable complexity'.
I'd note a few things quickly, though;
[q]
I am not refusing to accept science because of fear of breaking my beleif system. I know that my beleifs can be explained and proven in part, as yours can in part. I know in-the-end, there is a explination and answer for everything, but right now we do not have all the facts or w\e to answer everythign now.[/q]
You mean, you refuse to accept the known facts that are contradicting your belief system, because you're refusing to accept an explanation supported by decades upon decades of supporting evidence because it does precisely that.
[q]
You speak as if everything you say and hold true is impeckable. I laugh at that.[/q]
'Impeccable', actually. And all of those of a scientific dint recognise that science accepts the possibility of disproof - in fact, it's an essential part, and the consistent lack of it (combined with the oppositely large quantity of proof) is what makes evolution regarded as fact. The weakness of your position is that you've already shown you're unwilling to accept the possibility of disproof or contradiction, both in ignoring previous scientific evidence pointed out and in revisiting the same disproven arguements (see below; irreducible complexity link)
[q]Analogy right back at ya man:
A man stands in a liquid. It is dark. He sees it glitter, feels the liquid, and hears it. He says "This is water. Anyone who tells me different is silly and greatly mistaken. Its fact that it is. The sun comes up, and he realises it is not water, but a great lake of apple juice. It feels just like water, sounds like it, looks like it in the dark, but yet its not. He thought he could see the whole picture, the whole thing, but greatly mistaken was he. The glisten didnt prove it was water, or the combination of several observations.[/q]
What a bizarre analogy. The problem is you've missed his point completely; the position of creationism is closer, far closer, to that 'lake of apple juice' bloke, because it flat out ignores a vast amount of observed evidence. So when you claim 'there is evidence to support creationism' a) there isn't (all the cited evidence has been deliberate or accidentally erroneous and scientifically unsound) and b) there is far, far more supporting evolutionary theory. Bear in mind Darwin lived in a very puritan Christian society - how on earth would his theory have been adopted then if it wasn't well supported when he formed it?
[q]Correct, that is a plausable statement (about the flood). Well, the whole OT is a record, a historical record. Heck, half of it seems to tell each familes family tree linage. Its loaded with 'the son of amar. and he had 3 sons, tomar, riack, ect. And they had.. ect. (I made that last sentence up as an example) The OT tells of the movements of the people, how the weather was doing (famines, ect.) wars, where other peoples and civilations were located. It is a trackbook of the Hebrews, Isralites. Not everything can match up, as a good deal of ancient history does not match up. Jerico was destroyed, and they couldent write about the Isralites passing by. You get my drift. But, lets say there was this boat. And you got on it. And it rained till it covered the mountiantops. And you were on the boat above the mountians, which you could not see anymore. And it rained for 40 More days.. and you have traveled very far, seeing nothing. None of the surronding mountains you knew were around. It woud be safe to say it was a worldwide flood.[/q]
Again, we can cite this did not happen because it is scientifically impossible for it to have done so.....already covered, really. A quick glance at the rough area the bible originates from shows it'd be pretty hard to end up 40 feet above the top of (the highest) mountains without the Egyptians even noticing. Mt. Ararat is 16940 ft high - can you really envisage a localised flood rising to over 16980 ft?!
Also, there have been several studies on mitochondrial DNA supporting homo sapiens as being descended from a small group (this would explain the relative lack of human genetic diversity) based in Africa about 25,000 years ago, which would contradict the biblical account.
[q]One does not have to research every religon. And i am not motivated to do such a thing. Analogy.
There is a basket of fruits. You want an apple. you blindly reach in and grab one. Its an apple. you know it is really an apple. Should you search the rest of the basket, even if you have the right one in your hand?
I personaly think that was a great analogy. Yay for me.[/q]
Except in this context, you don't know it's an apple. In fact, there's a lot of things proving that the one next to it is an apple. But you don't want to have to have to look for another apple, you like the non-apple you have because it suits you for whatever reason, so you keep it and convince yourself it is an apple.
It's wrong to characterise evolution as a belief, though. It's no more a belief than, say, gravity or electromagenetism.
[q]
Isnt talking about biology, geology, palaeontology or whatever, hijacking in the first place, in certian instances?[/q]
On a thread about another fossil supporting evolutionary theory? I doubt it. Shovelling in discredited religious ideas in the form of an insult and some - literal - rubbish about chicken DNA is most definately hijacking, and I'd guess (not looking back all those pages) that's BWs' point.
[q]
Rediculous according to who? Where is your proof to back that statement up, or your facts that led you to that conclusion? Your side may seem equally rediculous to many christians, such as Zman.[/q]
It's ridiculous according to the observed scientific evidence. That is, centuries of supporting work, performed from an empirical and unbaised perspective. what is ridiculous, in particular, is the casual dismissal of such a welter of evidence. It's truly an incredible amount of scientific work that supports the theory of evolution, and it's being thrown away in favour of an allegorical religious text (because we can prove the account of Genesis is not literal, we covered that in pages 3-4 ish I believe) interpreted literally (something I'd note goes against the heads of both the Catholic Church and Church of England, who have spoken out to condemn the attacks upon science that ID/creationism are).
