Summations Only

You are confusing disagreement with being despised. They are two very different things. The point of view that you can make any claim you want without any evidence to back it up does rub people the wrong way. Why shouldn't it? There is an easy cure for this one. Start with evidence and move towards your conclusion. Your presence is more than welcome. What is not welcomed are claims that are devoid of evidence within the Science fora.

There is a bit of hyperbole in the above quote, but the sentiment is dead on. I have been to conferences where young postdocs have left the podium in tears after their presentation was ripped to shreds. Science is not for the weak of heart, that is for sure. To be quite frank, creationists are treated with kid's gloves on this site compared to how they would be treated in a real scientific arena.The funny part is that scientists WANT IT TO BE THIS WAY. This is how we prefer it. Every hypothesis has to pass a trial by fire. This is very different from the environment that creationists are coming from where ideas are not challenged as long as they ahdere to orthodoxy. In science, there are no sacred cows. Every idea is up for debate. There are no such things as dangerous questions in science. Not so for religion. Galileo found that out the hard way.

As others have stated, you don't need any faith in science because you are never asked to accept anything as true without evidence. No faith required.Your whole statement seems to be a tacit admission that you already know that the evidence is against you. Otherwise, what would you have to fear from science? Why would you have to downplay the evidence before it is even presented? Many of us here prefer not to put forward bad ideas. We think it is a hallmark of good debate to at least understand the basics of what is being discussed before throwing out ideas that are contrary to the current scientific consensus. For example, our earlier discussion on genomes. You alluded to the idea that phenotypic variation could somehow mask a genetic bottleneck. If you understood the basics of genetics and development you would not have made such an error. The evidence you followed to the conclusions you are presenting. For example, I was curious as to the evidence you had that lead you to the conclusion that past life had supergenomes, and what these supergenomes looked like. Surely this is not too much to ask? What is wrong with that? So you don't believe that the nucleus of an atom is made of netrons and protons? You don't believe that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms? You don't believe that rain is caused by water vapor precipitating out of solution? Really?Rather, it appears that there are some things that you don't want to believe, so you cast doubt on any and all evidence right off the bat so you don't have to consider it. So if an atheist told you that malaria was caused by parasites found in mosquitoes you would not believe them, no matter how much evidence they presented?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Are Aesop's Fables absolutely true? If I were to tell you that animals do not talk would that take away from the truths that are found in Aesop's Fables? Do you have to believe that animals talk in order to find truth in Aesop's Fables? Do you think that Aesop already knew that animals do not talk when he wrote those fables?What I think you are seriously missing is what myths really are. They are not unimportant. In fact, they are very important, especially to the cultures that produce them. The truth of a myth is not bound in whether the events described in the myth actually happened any more than Aesop's Fables were supposed to be first hand accounts of animals talking to each other. Think of the Parables that Jesus told. If I argued that the Prodigal Son never existed wouldn't you scratch your head at why I would be arguing over such a thing?On top of everything else, the one thing that binds every christian together, the Nicene Creed, makes no mention of a literal Genesis. It is not a foundation of christianity. Never has been.

foreveryoung is a perfect example of what I see as a common creationist viewpoint. It is a tortured position where evidence takes a back seat. Here are the steps in the thought process:1. The Bible is trustworthy because it has not been shown to be false.2. Someone claims to have evidence that shows the Bible (or more accurately, my personal interpretation of the Bible) to be false.3. Evidence has to be wrong. See step 1.We can see this thought process in action when foreveryoung states that s/he does not trust science, and is especially distrustful of atheist scientists. Afterall, foreveryoung trusts the Bible and it is never wrong, so the science has to be wrong.It is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize a dogmatic position. foreveryoung claims that christians should have a logical foundation for their beliefs, but it is quite obvious that this position is based on dogma that is devoid of logic and reason. Until foreveryoung is willing to follow the evidence there is really no reason to present it. When a belief is formed without evidence, how could evidence be used to change it?Some of the most enlightening conversations I have had is when I ask creationists to describe the type of evidence that would falsify their claims. For example, what features would a fossil need in order for them to accept it as transitional? What geologic feature would disprove a recent global flood? What shared genetic feature would they accept as evidence that humans and other apes share a common ancestor? The silence that follows these types of questions is very damning.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It would seem that you have done this all on your own. By requiring a literal Genesis you have ensured its destruction. You are pitting the Bible against reality.

Poe?