Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions

Thus proving that Christianity and biblolatry are two different things. It is more likely that in theology school they taught him how to reconcile Genesis with reality.Hey look, we briefly got back on topic!--- No-one claimed that the behavior of bacteria explains all life on earth. To see it personally? Or would you settle for observations made by others? We call 'em plants. Green things, you must have noticed them.

I didn't say we did. I said we observed evidence for evolution. Just as, for example, forensic scientists can prove that a man died from being shot without observing him being shot. No, of course not. Creationism can be judged on the same evidential standards as evolutionary biology. Indeed, it can be judged by reference to the same evidence. The difference is that the evidence is against creationism. That's how we know its rubbish.By analogy, your question is like a guilty man complaining that he did not get the "same consideration" as a man found innocent by the same court. But they were both judged by the same standards --- the difference is that the guilty man was actually guilty. This is, of course, not even remotely true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And you have been told that we observe the evidence for evolution.

Observations of morphology, developmental biology, paleontology, genetics, biogeography, behavioral ecology, plus, of course, being able to watch evolution happening.

Experiments were never "always necessary". Science has never worked like that. No-one says that you can't directly observe it. They say that you can't directly observe all the evolution that has ever happened.The fossil record is indeed an important source of evidence for evolution. The gaps in it that creationists have taught you to complain about are, of course, not evidence against it, since the theory of evolution does not predict that there should be no gaps in the fossil record. Because there are no observations that support creationism. Yeah, it's like saying: "I can use arithmetic to prove that two and two is four, but you can't use it to prove that two plus two is five."Well, you can't. This is because two and two is actually four. The same methods would be open to someone maintaining that 2 + 2 = 5 as to someone maintaining that 2 + 2 = 4, but the use of these same methods would only prove one of them right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Still, I'd be willing to bet that the Pope has a larger congregation than you do. And I hope that this futile daydream brings you comfort. It's been comforting reality-deniers for the last hundred and fifty years, after all. The faith that any day now someone will make some observation that will disprove evolution has been literally handed down from generation to generation.And that is laughable right now.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.