Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

Paul, no creationist said religious bias is a significant factor in this topic. You invoked creationists being bad to take the heat off the topic, which infact pertains to evolutionists - and if we should accept what they tell us. So pa-lease, -- don't make any off-topic remarks about "if a creationist brushes his teeth I get upset, because evolutionists also do that".Now since us believers take heat from being under authority - it's your turn.Tell me - how can I do an experiment to show that macro-evolution happens? Because my family have been breeding horses for thousands of years in hope of breeding something other than a horse. Please tell us when we can test macro-evolution in our own homes.Meanwhile, we trust people like Einstein because of his predictions - and if we want to see that the earth is spherical, then we can look at any snapshot from orbit. And if we want to test the big bang we can put on our tv, but I still await my own home test for evolution.So untill there is one - I'm not going to gullibly swallow this ape to man nonsense when I can trust God because he was there at the time. This evolution theory just isn't as solid as the other sciences, and seems to take some belief from the individual, as it seems no one can test macro-evolution, and therefore - only have there own reasons to believe in it.

ANd as usual - you don't see the point I am making."IF a creationist says" or "creationists might say" - doesn't make a creationist guilty of saying anything. It's the same in Dan's thread - strawmans about us creationists that we don't actually make.Here's another suggestion that proves nothing whatsoever; Evolutionists might say that all creationists must die.This is the prevailing strawman method in place with you guys lately. THEN; Hmmmm. Yet still no creationist who has done what you are both suggesting. Hmmm, good job mike's logic is so good.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 06:28 PM

Ermm - no, you both imply this invisible creationist MIGHT say something or IF he says something...And I'm telling you that this doesn't mean that a creationist has done something.If they do this then they are guilty.They are not guilty = they haven't done it. - and so far, you haven't provded they do do it.I actually mention it - because it's how bullsh** starts pertaining to creationists.Example;"Baba might eat humans"
"If baba eats humans, he's a degenerate"
"What? - that's disgusting that babas eat humans".I see this all the time with evos here - a great example is that all christians say you are going to burn in hell. I'm still waiting for a christian to say this.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 08:10 PM

Hy Sylas - I spotted u lurking here first because of my Columbo brilliance. Welcome back.Some points that I agreed with; You see, to us - the universe makes us just as certain that we see a designer like these scientists do. Because survival of the fittest - and men dying, is not the reason for biblical death. I might consider animal natural death and some form of animal evolution where the bible indicates it, but not critters taring eachother up before the fall. This is surely true. It's like an even ground almost. "Hey Bob - let me have evolution so I can have no God and you have evolution so you can". While this seems fair - we shouldn't feed any persons doubt in God, because we will be causing them to sin - i.e. Feeding their delusion that they are not accountable to God for their actions on earth, by accepting and reinforcing the belief that random chance is just as possible as an intelligent designer, because of Ocams razor.I don't think people like yourself have a religious bias though - and in this thread, no creationist had asserted this.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 08:06 PM