Summations Only

Because science is based on evidence. Science goes where the evidence leads, and the conclusions follow from the evidence. I guarantee you that any person here who is interested in science will examine any evidence you offer, whether it agrees with what we think or not. If the evidence does indeed support your position, we will accept it. That is the commitment we make when we engage in scientific investigation.

This made a lot of sense. One thing I have to make clear though is this. I have a lot of confidence in what I believe, not based on science, but my faith in God. I don't have much faith in science. I am not trying to be arrogant. I am here merely to discuss my ideas. I am not going to wait for an enormous time, while I thoroughly research an issue or write a research paper of my own documented with references before I dare utter an opinion on this board. I am thinking out loud for Christ's sake. I am not saying I know I am right from a scientific point of view. If I didn't feel confident in my beliefs I would not have any beliefs. What is it you people want from me? ... To say that I don't believe anything until I have solid scientific evidence to back up what I believe? If my list of beliefs were restricted to what had solid scientific evidence for it, I would not believe anything. The reason for that is that I don't think any evidence is completely solid and I am suspicious of any evidence that comes from somebody who is an strong atheist as most scientists are.

I am not in a lab. Neither are you when you are debating on a forum. How does either of us possible come up with evidence?

I would offer evidence if I had a clue what that would look like on a discussion board. I have ideas and I am discussing them with you. When you ask for evidence, I don't have the faintest idea of how to provide it.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

What do you hope to accomplish or learn in such a discussion? Even when we delve into the science, you don't seem to participate for long. Your question about decay rates ended up spinning off into a couple of threads, in none of which did you participate in any significant way. I don't recall the discussion being laden with insults.

There are countless sources on the internet that provide endless amounts of evidence. And there are any number of people here who would would gladly help you find it. In fact, as I understand it, in another thread, you've already been given an introduction to searching for scientific papers on the 'net.

I was intending to say that you specifically were the lowest common denominator, I apologize if you took it personally. But the fact is that we see many creationist come through with the attitude of "I don't understand it therefore it is false" . Check out some of Buz's posts where he clearly doesn't have a shred of knowledge of the subject he's discussing but thinks that he's right and science is wrong because the science isn't understandable by people using "common sense". Your comment: is along those lines.

Most atheists hold a ''I'm almost certain that God doesn't exist'' for this very reason, and science always has harsh inner debate before it accepts things.I understand you wish to uphold your faith, and will not accept the evidence given for evolution/everything else that is being debated. However, ruling out the option that the evidence may be correct, because you have deep faith in God's creation, is a very tricky way to approach a debate. I understand why you do this, and you're free to, but if you willingly participate in a forum dedicated to discussion, and with a strong accent on presenting evidence and logic to support claims, distrusting evidence a priori goes with the large risk your fellow debated grow frustrated and begin to rely on sarcasm and mockery.However, as long your faith does not budge, your stance in the topics will not change. This is not really your fault, but a side-affect of such a important subject that this forum discusses, people aren't going to concede easily, and is is going to be tense at times.

That was very helpful and interesting. Here is one point I want to respond to though: The creationists who bring up an old topic don't realize it has been repeatedly brought up and supposedly debunked. It is freshly new to them. Creationists, for the most part, get enthusiastic about an idea they think will finally seriously undercut "evolutionistic philosophy". They will excitedly bring it up in a forum such as this and then face ferocious, mocking and ridicule. They don't even realize how they have been debunked. They can't realize it because they don't have the slightest idea of what the opposing arguments are. They go away angry and despising atheists and what passes for scientists and probably never attempt to engage them again. This is how you keep getting new arrivals on a constant basis with the same old arguments. They don't know their fellow christians have been down the same road with the same argument. All they know from their fellow christians is that atheists and most scientists are assholes and act hatefully when their ideas are presented for debate. No commonality is every reached. Distrust of science and scientists grows and so they never even get started on the road to learning what everybody on this board already knows. All that is left is distrust and enmity. I don't think this chasm will ever be breached. A christian is going to believe what they do regardless of what you present to them. This isn't stupidity to them. It is the only sane way of living that they know of. They are not going to let you take away their faith at all costs, and so their will be a lot of emotion involved and a lot of distrust involved.

A lot of times, I don't know where that evidence is , if there is any. I just have an idea that I want to discuss. I would never post anything if I had to wait until i found the so called evidence on the web for my position.

Yet almost all the recognized Christian sects acknowledge that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that explains the diversity of life seen today and in the historical record.I was educated in a religious Christian school and quite frankly once someone was at the equivalent of the seventh grade or so the idea that Young Earth or Special Creation or Intelligent Design might be true would and did receive the same treatment by both the faculty and students you find here. That was over a half century ago and honestly the idea that there might still be schools or teachers trying to market such nonsense a half century later would have been at best laughable.The question you should ask yourself is "How is it possible that today, there are still people filling kids minds with such utter nonsense?"

Real scientific evidence isn't something you can take or leave. Real scientific evidence is replicable and available to everyone, the only disclaimers being that it might require a certain expertise and access to certain technical apparatus.Discussions not anchored in evidence have no connection to the real world and are not scientific. If you've got real world evidence that we reject I'd like to know what it is. Can you provide an example?--Percy

This is something we know all too well.I try to avoid to jumping to conclusions, but it seems to me, based on your chosen handle and some of the things you've said here, that you are a relatively young person, late teens or early 20s. Many of us here have been studying science generally and creationism in particular for longer than you have been alive. I say this not to denigrate you in any way, but to give you insight into our perspective.We have seen dozens of creationists, cdesign proponentists, and IDists come and go. Occasionally, one or two will stay, learn something, and see that everything they thought they knew about science was wrong. Occasionally, one or two will stay, never learn anything, and continue to post the same errors.To those of us who've been doing this ten years or more, this process can get a little tiresome. We can lose patience. We often speak in shorthand that we have developed to make our points quickly, but forget that someone new to the discussion does not have the same reference framework that we do. I think this is human nature. If it comes off and terse, insulting and indicative of disdain for those in the conversation, that is to our mutual detriment. But if you consider for a moment our history, and the many, many times we've had to present the same evidence to answer the same questions, only to have that evidence usually dismissed, perhaps you can understand why it happens.Also, this is the internet, and there are some asshats here.If there were fewer creationists who believe what they believe and aren't willing to consider new ideas and new evidence, perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to take the low road.Also, I'd take issue with your use of the word "christian." There are many christians in science and here in the forum who understand the science and can reconcile it with their religious beliefs. Not all christians are unwilling to examie the evidence and reform their ideas based on what they learn. That, perhaps, is the key characteristic that separates creationists and IDist from christians. Something to think about.

That is quite common among creationists.I suggest you begin here. You will find a broad collection of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. If there is anything there you don't understand or wish to discuss, feel free to start a new thread on that point.I also have a suggestion. When you don't know something, the way to begin learning is to ask questions rather than making statements. I think you will find virtually everyone here is more than willing to help someone learn, and is considerably more patient with someone who asks questions rather than makes statements that we know to be inaccurate.This is a debate site, so there will always be folks wanting to argue with you. But it is also a discussion site, and we've all been here long enough to know that we know things most people don't. And we're always happy to share with those who want to learn, if you do truly want to learn.

Religious beliefs are based upon faith. Scientific beliefs are based upon evidence. If you're going to take beliefs you hold on faith into a science forum where beliefs are based upon evidence, what do you think is going to happen?Presumably you'll uncover evidence while conducting your gully research. What would you think of someone who rejected your evidence based upon his religion? You seem to be discouraged that your uninformed opinions are not being treated with the same respect given to opinions supported by the research that, by your own admission, you don't have time for. I don't have time to practice the piano, so would I be justified in demanding as much respect for my playing as a concert pianist? I don't have time to study the Bible, so would I be justified in demanding as much respect for my opinions as a Biblical scholar?My willingness to fault evolutionists for a lack of patience for repetitive creationist arguments is tempered by creationists' lack of patience for learning much about the topics they're discussing, and you've just said you don't have the patience to inform yourself before expressing your opinion. The approach most people here on the science side follow is to understand the degree to which their various beliefs are supported by real world evidence. This helps them avoid expressing opinions with greater confidence than can be justified by their knowledge. The problems with marching into discussions with uninformed opinions seem obvious, regardless of topic or who does it. As one creationist once put it, he felt his religious background had provided him a gun loaded with blanks when it came to battling evolution.Here's a good example of one of your uninformed opinions: Most scientists are not atheists. Most scientists in this country are Christian.But you are absolutely correct in saying that you "don't think any evidence is completely solid." In science everything is tentative, including evidence. A good recent example is the faster-than-light neutrino experiments. While they're not sure yet, they now suspect that the evidence gathering equipment introduced a degree of error. Even evidence can be wrong but our confidence grows as evidence mounts and experiments are replicated, though it never reaches certainty.--Percy