two important questions for Servant

Hardly. If I get in a car and drive towards Idaho, and you get in a car and drive towards Idaho, is the reason we're moving towards each other because we're attracted to each other?Or is it just because our paths happen to take us to the same place? How could it not bend space? Space is hardly a void. It's not just a stage on which matter and energy act. It's a participant in interactions. It's more like a piece of paper - generally not considered as significant as what is on it, but a participant in the process nonetheless. The potential energy that they were imbued with when they moved away from each other. No, that's what I'm telling you - why they move that way. The reason they move that way is because that's the shortest path through the curved space they inhabit.It's really weird that you're telling me that we don't know something, when I know that something, and moreover, I'm telling you right now. I seem to recall that my question was the third message in the thread, a direct response to your second message, which was a challenge to come up with something that young-earth creationism couldn't explain.Well, I met the challenge, as far as I can see. If you think differently that's a position you need to support. The simple fact that when two entities arrive at the same or similar conclusions via totally different, unrelated processes and reasoning, it's most parsimonious to assume that their conclusion reflects a real, underlying reality and not simply some kind of co-incidence of errors.If I make a measurement and get a certain result, and you make the same measurement in a totally different way and get the same result, the most likely explanation is that we're measuring the same thing, not that we're both having hallucinations that, co-incidentally, agree on their most important detail. Moreover, the concept that any observation you make coincides with other people's observation is the "only" evidence that you have that reality really exists. For some reason you think that's "shaky", though, so I presume that you don't believe reality really exists?The rest of us, though, who live on Planet Earth, know that corroborating observation and measurement is the best way to determine if something is real or not. It boggles my mind that that isn't good enough for you. To the contrary, Mendel made observations of pea plants and other organisms over a period of many years. That constitutes a history of genetic variation within the gene pools he was studying. If you had a picture of me standing by my SUV in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, then yeah. That's what the fossil record represents - the organisms that we would expect to exist if we extrapolated backwards from the genetic evidence. Dean Kamen is the inventor of both one kind of kidney dialysis machine and the Segway scooter. They're nothing alike. Objects often share similarities when they're designed by the same designer - but only when they're designed for the same purpose.Objects of different purpose don't look the same, even if they were designed by the same person. So that argument doesn't explain why organisms of wildy different "purpose" - that is, environment - share common features. Why do whales have pelvises, for instance? Why do men have nipples?Moreover it's hardly scientific to reject a perfectly good explanation for one that relies on the existence of a designer that no one can prove exists. Arguments from intelligent design would be a little more convincing if there was evidence that their designer existed, or was even that intelligent.

For exactly the reason we've been telling you - they're both different descriptions of the same thing, a very real pattern of heredity between species.You're right that the odds of that happening are very, very low. The explanation therefore is that the trees weren't arrived at by chance, but rather, because they're accurate descriptions of reality.

Slow down everyone.The post I am responding to has 8 quoted extracts.

• The first two are from Message 124 by crashfrog.
• The next is from Message 125 by Lam.
• The next is from Message 126 by crashfrog again.
• The next three are from Message 127 by schrafinator.
• The last is from Message 129 by Sylas (me).

Welcome to the dogpile. This is a common phenomenon when one person posts material that sixteen others find (in their opinion) easy to refute.Welcome back Servant2thecause. To properly manage the discussion, you are going to need some strategies, and others are going to need to co-operate as well.

• Everyone else: be patient. Don't demand that your particular point must be addressed immediately, or even at all. Servant2thecause is should be allowed to limit his focus.
  ​
• Servant2thecause, you don't need to answer everyone. You should feel free to ignore a number of the threads of discussion, just for the sake of focus. Remember that people have ready answers for you; and you will not be able to close out a topic with a single well argued position.
  ​
• The best posts to ignore are the ones which are aggressive, insulting or without substance. It is easy to respond and take high ground, but this usually just generates more response. There are sometimes two ways at looking conduct, and this tactic will just diverge into stuff of little real interest.
  ​
• Keep each unrelated responses in different posts. Normally we frown on too many consecutive posts; but two or three on distinct threads of discussion should be okay.
  ​
• Take a bit of time on the responses that you do choose to make.
  ​
• Feel free to say explicitly which threads of discussion you do not have time to pursue at present. If people take this unfairly and demand that you simply have to address their little hobby horse; I'll try to back you up a bit. Staying on the original thread topic also helps.

I'm not going to respond to the bit which related to my questions on DNA until there is a sign of better focus all around for the thread and we can relax.Welcome back — Sylas (in genial uncle admin mode) (Fixed bad link in edit.)This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-15-2004 12:35 AM

Sorry about this Crash, but you're going on a bit like you know a lot about cosmology and general relativity. My impression from the past is that you are a very knowledgable amateur. If this is true then be careful when you step out into the more complex topics.I think, with my limited knowledge, that you are right enough for this level of discussion but don't allow someone to think you know more about it than you actually do. We might need to leave some of that to Eta.I hope you take this in the way it is intended. Thanks.

Lord, no. More like, "guy with the illustrated copy of Brief History of Time" on his desk."At any time I'm ameinable to correction, and I'm no expert on advanced physics. But I'll say this - I'm honestly not that mystified by what I know about gravity. I'm pretty comfortable that I have a basic handle on what gravity is, or what it can be described as.So when somebody says "we don't have any idea what gravity is", I find that puzzling, because I certainly seem to have a pretty good idea what it is, and I don't think I'm unusual in that regard.By all means it isn't my intention to come off as an expert. If anything the fact that I'm amateur in the extreme should be quite convincing - if I of all people have a fairly good idea of what's going on with gravity, then it can't honestly be such a mystery, can it?

It's just dangerous in front of some audiences to leave any room for misunderstandings.Some of these guys are used to people deliberately pretending to know what they are talking about. I'd prefer to understate what I know rather than risk overstating it.And what you say about gravity is, I think, true but we have to remember that without the detailed math we are going to make oversimplifications and can get in trouble at some point.

Hi Sylas,I can't tell if your post is intended as direction or a question.If it is direction, then "thank you" and I ammend my suggestion to "two strings of DNA; one male and one female".If it is a question then I don't understand it. How would the reproduction from DNA created by my proposed method be different from the reproduction proposed by tToE?Thanks from an ever-learning
Bob, Alice, and Eve

I was asking you questions.You had said that "the Creator created the DNA of every living thing".Now, your DNA and my DNA are different. So in your opinion, was your DNA created by the creator? Was mine? Do the genetic differences which distinguish us as unique individuals arise naturally? If they arise naturally, does that mean we are NOT individually creations of God?Let's stick to that question, for now. One thing about creationism which I consider theologically in conflict with orthodox Christian beliefs is the notion that there are some things made by God, and others which are (by contrast) made by natural processes. The creationist attempt to present natural processes as a way of leaving God out of the equation is inconsistent with the traditional Christian view that God is creator of all the world.Cheers -- Sylas

What I wrote, bold emphasis added: What you wrote:

quote:

---

Well then, why would the scientists' construction of the genetic tree of life fit so perfectly well with the morphological tree of life without any contradiction.

---

I wrote similarity, not "perfect match."Everyone who already responded to you brought up the major points;1) The prediction of Evolutionary theory that the genetic tree of life would be very similar to the morphological tree of life was borne out, thus strengthening the theory.2) That accusations of a huge, deliberate fraud by hundreds of thousands of scientists over 150 years needs some seriouly good evidence to support it if it is to be taken seriously.3) That the two trees of life are not exact matches, but much, much, much more similar than chance, or some other mechanism, would predict.Perhaps you would like to see some evidence of this match up in more detail?You can see it here:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

Eh, why bother? In Servant's bizarro negative-world it's easier to believe in a massive, undetectable, evidenceless conspiracy spanning thousands of biologists over 200 years than in a scientific model supported by evidence and with great explanitory and predictive power.And folks like him wonder why creationism isn't taken seriously.

Thanks for the feedback, Sylas.First, my original statement (nearer the start of this thread) was "the baseline of every living thing" and that is what I meant to repeat. By baseline, I mean sexually independent. Adam and Eve were, in this regard, the baseline for humans.Your follow-on was interesting in that I am not sure that "creator of all the world" means the same thing to each of us. Are you suggesting that God create's every quark (or whatever the smallest item is) and continues re-creation with every breath of air and bite of food? Would this mean that the "food' from the mother does not enter into (is not assimilated by) the developing offspring? And so on?My understanding of "orthodox Christian belief' is that each of us is re-created daily from the "dust of the earth" (the existing material) by a (natural?) process set up by the Creator.I look forward to your response.
BAE

quote:

---

My understanding of "orthodox Christian belief' is that each of us is re-created daily from the "dust of the earth" (the existing material) by a (natural?) process set up by the Creator.
  —BobAliceEve

---

That is pretty close to my understanding of the orthodox position also; God is not only creator, but also sustainer.My point is that this undercuts any criticism of evolution as being atheistic. Evolution is just another natural process. If the Christian position of faith credits to God the creation of the entire cosmos, all all its aspects, then evolution is not really for or against God at all; it deals with a different question.Which brings us to my second question, about "appearance" of common ancestry. Common ancestry is not inferred merely by similarity. It is inferred by nested patterns of similiarity. Much the same kind of nested paterns can identify degrees of relationship within the scope of human history; so why insist that these suddenly become "appearance" rather than the real thing, when dealing with ancestry going back more than ten thousand years?Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

Eh, why bother? In Servant's bizarro negative-world it's easier to believe in a massive, undetectable, evidenceless conspiracy spanning thousands of biologists over 200 years than in a scientific model supported by evidence and with great explanitory and predictive power.

---

Coz I'm an eternal optimist?No, that's not it. It's for the fence-sitters that I persist.Very rarely do the people who come with a lot of misinformation (or outright ignorance) actually change their mind about anything in the least.I hope that the people who are still trying to figure out where they stand notice who is providing the info, the reasoned and logical arguments, and who is not.

quote:

---

And folks like him wonder why creationism isn't taken seriously.

---

Yep, they do wonder.In another life I would like to come back as a sociologist or psychologist (a la Michael Shermer) and spend my life studying why people believe wierd things, and why people believe without evidence at all.Crash, have you read Shermer's books?

{AdminSylas notes: None of this post is written as a response to the post which is listed in the "This message is a reply to" field. Servant2thecause is responding to two other posts. It starts as a response to Message 135 by NosyNed}That’s not my job. It’s the job of the geneticists to show that the genetic sequences have been analyzed CORRECTLY and the job of the peers to determine whether the analysis has been done correctly and my obligation to question whether it’s been done correctly, for the mere sake of helping an otherwise viable theory stand up to questioning and scrutiny before it’s accepted as reality. You totally misunderstood my point. Libel applies to a written statement spelling out what is not true. I simply said that there are two possibilities: I said that there are two possibilities, then I said that I MYSELF believed in the latter, and THEN I questioned whether the first one was the truth about offering astonishing evidence for evolution. Plain and simple, either it is a coincidence or it is wrong. Now then, show me where the libel is! Also, I do not have to have proof for saying that there are two possibilities. And lastly, I was not making any accusations; rather, I was stating that there are two possible reasons as to why we see what we see in genetics and morphology, so please stop antagonizing the true point I’m trying to make by throwing accusations at ME. I was pointing out a possible (emphasis on possible) flaw in the logic behind using the correlation of morphology and genetics as evidence for neo-Darwinism, nothing more. Therefore, tell me what evidence I need. I was pointing you towards a what-if possibility. I don’t know for certain that my hypothetical what-if is true or if your more refined, well-documented ideology is correct; I was giving both possibilities a fighting chance, and leaving it at that. Explain this to me like I’m a ten-year-old: where is the evidence of common ancestry? Let me back in to this, actually intellectually, I understand the argument that neo-Darwinists are trying to make in the field of genetics and morphology; however, they’re still taking a leap of faith, unless of course I’m missing something major (highly unlikely, because I expect that you would have come forth with your strongest arguments first and then given me the supplements, which apparently you EITHER have not done yet OR you have no strong arguments whatsoever). {AdminSylas notes. Here end responses to Message 135 by NosyNed. Here begin responses to Message 136 by crashfrog.} Interesting point. When you answer my question first (same thing but without the not) then I’ll be sure to get back to you on this one. When I said void I did not mean that space was featureless. You missed my main point. Between a void and a sheet of paper, space would classify under the realm of void. That is because of the dimensional nature of open space. Space is not just a fabric that can be torn and opened and mended; space is the physical realm in which all interactions between bodies occur. How can you explain the catalyst for the potential energy within the openness of space, without a non-physical explanation? Understandable, but if there is no attraction within the realm of gravity, and no force behind it, and nothing except movement in a strait line, (as you suggested) then what catalyzes the potential energy? What acts upon the two objects TO move toward each other? I understand that you told me the reason why they move toward each other is because a strait line is the distance between two points, but why TOWARD each other and not just moving around randomly (toward each other implies an attraction of SOME sort whether it be physical or a metaphysical phenomenon). And your driving to Idaho analogy embodies a flaw: it would require intellectual input to get our cars to move toward each other. If you and I hopped into our cars and drove around randomly, what are the chances that we’d end up in Idaho, let alone moving toward each other? Your argument implies one of two things; that either it requires intelligent input for two bodies to move toward each other in space, OR that you have no rational explanation for why it happens in such a manner. I understand completely how gravity is the movement of two objects in a strait line towards each other. You have done an excellent job (although unnecessary and irrelevant) explaining THAT part to me. However, you have not explained what I asked in the first place. What IS gravity. You already gave me a conjured answer, but you have not given me the physical properties of the movement which catalyzes the potential energy or WHY two bodies move toward each other in the first place. Sounds like you’re saying that evolution is the answer because it’s the most CONVENIENT explanation for why we see what we see. What does it matter what we THINK we know? In the end, there will always be missing information and detrimental facts left out of the equation. Granted, but if you make an inference and I make an inference and they match up it is a 50/50 whether each (or both) is true. The morphological tree of life was not a measurement, it was an inference as to what scientists of the past speculated to have happened. It’s not evidence for reality, it’s circular reasoning. We have evidence for evolution based on morphology, and genetics supports it. We have evidence for evolution based on genetics, and morphology supports it. But wait, did we ever have conclusive, empirical evidence to BEGIN with or must we rely on the fact that our two conclusions agree with one another. Still sounds shaky to my mind, but perhaps that’s because I’m too scientifically-challenged to grasp anything you say. What is REAL is a fact that speaks for itself (like the sky is blue). What is POSSIBLE is a fact that needs to be interpreted or corroborated with another fact to become theoretically or hypothetically real. There are not too many people that I can think of that would argue against the sky being blue on a sunny day. However, such is not a fact that needs to be tested and predicted and corroborated with other evidence (just go outside and look up). Science does not, and would be wasting its time to, need to prove this to me. However, science needs to prove to me the age of the earth and the origin of life and the process that living organisms have been undergoing since their origins are all aspects of POSSIBLE reality that need to be proven before I can accept them scientifically. Logically, however, they are facts that speak for themselves.
I believe in universal absolutes. I also believe that humans are in search for higher meaning. The ultimate pillars of learning are, respectfully:
* What
* How
* WhyScience can tell us the what quite often, and sometimes even the how, but never the why. This may sound like a stretch. However, science always attempts to tell us WHAT happens (the direct observations of the universe) and even HOW (the methods in which processes take place) but I’ve never seen an example of a clear and direct WHY (the reason BEHIND a process or occurrence). As far as my understanding of the universe goes, that is where science starts and faith begins (a little radical, yes, but bear with me). For instance, precipitation:
Scientists understand much that there is to know about what precipitation is, for precipitation is the gravitational activity upon water, thus causing H20 to fall to earth in the form of liquid (rain) or solid (snow, sleet, hail). Scientists also offer a HOW: the kinetic energy of the individual water molecules within a liquefied body (lake, river, ocean) collide constantly and are often violently hurled from the body, breaking all polarized attraction within the ions (that is, the individual hydrogen and oxide). That is, essentially, evaporation. Once enough water molecules have accumulated, a cloud is formed. Eventually the cloud grows and rises, causing compression and a decreased temperature. Once enough mass AND density (mass divided by volume) is reached, the water clumps together and falls back to earth to accumulate in puddles and lakes and streams, only to start the process over again. However, science cannot offer a WHY (that is, why does it happen that way). Why does water evaporate? You may say that water evaporates because the kinetic energy of the individual molecules collide with on another till they are thrown from the massive gathering, but that only answers HOW water evaporates and STILL a WHY remains. WHY is there an attraction between positive and negative charged particles in atoms? There is (that’s a WHAT question) but there is no answer given as to WHY.
Crashfrog has done an excellent job in attempting to answer what gravity is (although there are a few issues I still disagree with you on, buddy, you have done a great job defending your point) but he has not addressed WHY gravity is (only what it is). I can go on forever with the why questions, because the simple fact remains that sometimes people get confused between the HOW and the WHY, partly because the line begins to fade as somebody spends much of his time studying how something happens and still can offer to valid reason for why. If I said this happens because God did it that way I am not advocating ignorance, but rather I’m addressing an issue that science fails at: WHY (not WHAT or HOW, which science often does a great job with addressing).If you walked into the kitchen and saw a kettle of water boiling, and asked me, why is the water boiling? I might answer two ways. First, I may give you an answer in relation to the kinetic energy of the molecules of dihydrogen monoxide increasing in speed thus causing the molecules to collide more and more profusely until they become violently thrown from the kettle in the form of steam once they reach the temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, OR I may answer with, I wanted to make myself a cup of tea. Only one answer TRULY addresses the question EXACTLY as it was intended, and that is the latter. The first answer, while more intellectual and more vivid, only addresses HOW the water boils, but WHY it boils was much more simple and direct. The existence of a God is difficult for many people to grasp because they attempt to throw God in with the rest of the mix (trying to label him with a WHAT and a HOW category when in reality science does a sufficient job in those areas). However, when left to the WHY category science has yet to offer TRUE knowledge. By TRUE knowledge I mean facts that speak for themselves and do not need interpretation or corroboration with other models or evidence.
By WHY I do not necessarily mean to what purpose. After all, THAT can be discussed in the HOW category of the physical realm. If you asked me WHY a person is benefited by oxygen and I explained the relation and need of respiratory processes in correlation to the bloodstream’s ability to transport oxygen throughout the body, I’d still only be giving you a more or less HOW response, but WHY is still a mystery that science cannot explain for the simple fact that WHY something is.
If you’d like to challenge my What-How-Why hypothesis, then please answer me this: WHY is (not IF or HOW is) a rainbow made? I would love to hear your response. I know that the illusion of red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet is what appears to the eye when light is bent through a prism (and Lord knows I’m not asking what light is: let’s not get into another tangent) but WHY does a rainbow affect happen WHEN light is bent into a prism (again, I’m not asking for HOW or IF but literally WHY). If you can offer me a better explanation than the existence of a supernatural entity with his/her own purpose, the I’d love to hear it.
In that case, also, allow me to base my assertion on a single hypothesis. But let me first back into it. I love science, and it is no wonder why I enjoy reading about it in peer-reviewed literature as well as published texts. I also believe that the advancements made in modern science have contributed greatly to our wellbeing as humans on earth. Likewise, I will continue to study science and the evidence of things as long as I live. I believe that no evidence should be shot down without first being open to contrasting interpretation AS WELL AS scrutiny and the possibility of missing data that would affect the outcome or conclusions to be drawn. Therefore I believe that neither neo-Darwinian evolution theory nor intelligent design hypothesis should be shunned from open research and scrutiny.
On a reality-basis (not on interpretive science, but on a blue-sky analogy) I believe that the earth is roughly 7000 years old and created by God. I believe that God (and Satan) had an impact on the world and has caused us to end up where we are today. I also believe in a flood that covered the globe AND a biodiversity caused by the spreading of God’s created creatures. Call it science; call it faith; call it a pain in the neck. But above all call it a possibility nonetheless. I am not dumb to science and I want to continue to seek learning and higher intellect in scientific terms and processes, but I would not rely on science for all the answers, especially if it is my personal belief that such answers can be instilled within us by spiritual influence (sounds absurd, but dismiss it as something that you don’t believe for the fact that you don’t believe it if you will, DO NOT dismiss it because it sounds stupid or ridiculous). But the problem is, if I saw a picture of you in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, it would offer utter PROOF of how something came to be. The fossil record more or less offers a blurred picture of a man that fits your description standing in front of an SUV that is the same color as yours (can be convincing depending on the advocate’s ability to argue a point, but nonetheless still a speculation).Oh and btw, thanks Sylas for your input. I have been trying to keep up in spite of my lifestyle. Addressing topics one at a time is difficult when more than one topic is brought up in between the times that I log onto this website, so I apologize for that. { AdminSylas notes. Nevertheless, you must try harder. If you respond to two completely different posts by different writers, then you should write two posts. Furthermore, each one should be given as a reply to the post you are addressing. You hit the reply button for Message 137, but none of your post is actually a reply to that post. My previous comments in Message 138 continue to apply in spades to this thread.

​

I appreciate the difficulty, but so far your posts confuse the thread by failing to maintain the proper flow and reply linking. Each post contains a reply button at the end of that post it. Use the current button when you reply to a particular post. Good luck. }Sincerely,
ServantP.S. on a lighter note, have I mentioned my disgust at the local gas prices? This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-16-2004 04:15 AM

I'm not sure I understand. Potential kinetic energy doesn't need to be "catalyzed." It becomes kinetic energy on it's own, all by itself. What is gravity? It's straight-line motion through curved space. I don't understand why that doesn't answer your question.Why do they move towards each other? Because that motion is the shortest path through the curved space they inhabit. Why are they moving at all? Because potential energy turns into kinetic energy. Why do they have potential energy? Because at some point, they moved away from each other, and that put potential energy "in" them.You're asking a lot of questions that to me, feel like they've been answered. Maybe we should drop this? Because I simply don't understand your objections any more. No, I'm saying that it's the most correct answer - on a scale of "correctness", or accuracy in terms of describing the "real" reality - because it explains the most evidence. If you're going to make up statistics, I wish you'd make up right ones. The odds of me generating a specific inference is one out of all possible inferences. That's not a number I feel comfortable calulating, right?The odds of us both coming up with the same inference at random are infinitestimal - one over that number of all possible inferences squared. That's fuckin' small. If two people tell you the same story, there's just no way in hell that they both happened to independantly make up the same lie. So they either talked to each other beforehand, or, if you can elminate that as a possibility, then you have evidence that the story they're telling you is something they really saw. Of course. Moreover, we'll never really know the "real" reality, because all we ever have are models of the universe in our heads. The "realness" of the universe is not accessable to us.Congratulations, you've come to the epistomological conclusion that first-year philosophy students learn on the second day of class. Now, the question is, what's the best way to construct the most accurate model in our heads?The answer? The scientific method. Not in the least. It was an hierarchy of inferred relationships from taxonomy - created by creationists, like Linneaus. (That sort of shoots your "presupposition" argument right down the shitter, doesn't it? If creationists came up with the tree of life, it's hardly an evolutionary presupposition, don't you think?) I think you can get it. Let me try an analogy.Albert comes to you and tells you a story about something he just saw, but you're not sure if you believe him. Then Bernard comes up and tells you a story about the same event. Largely, their stories agree, and you know they never speak to each other so you know they haven't agreed beforehand to lie to you. There's one of two possibilities at work:1) They're both lying to you, and through astonishing co-incidence, they've both independantly come up with the same lie.2) Their stories match because they both saw the same thing.Reasonable people conclude 2, like lawyers and judges, where this isn't called circular reasoning - it's called corroborating testimony. The reason it isn't circular is because you're not proving A with B and B with A, you're using A and B to prove C - which is the model of the actual event that occured.There's absolutely nothing circular about two bits of evidence corroborating a model. It's a very valid form of reasoning called "induction". Is the sky blue? Or do you just see a blue sky through your eyes? How well can your eyes be trusted, since they don't see a thing - they just see bouncing light.You can't directly experience reality. All you can do is interpret evidence from your senses and let your brain construct a model of reality in your mind. Reality itself is not directly accessable - this is "Plato's Cave", if you've ever heard of it. It's an epistomological limitation on what we can know about the world. Fine. Here's some facts that speak for themselves:1) There's a pattern to the fossil record. Fossils on the top must be younger than the ones on the bottom, because you can't put layers on layers that don't exist yet.
2) Organisms share genetic sequences in the same hierarcheal organization as organisms that are related to each other.
3) Organisms display hierarcheal levels of taxonomic similarity.
4) Those two hierarchies match each other to about 60-70%. Moreover, those hierarchies form an order that matches the fossil record pretty closely.There's no assumptions at work, here. There's no interpretation. These are facts that speak for themselves, and the most parsimonious explanation for these facts is called the Theory of Evolution. That list? Those represent the fact of evolution. The model that explains them? That's the theory of evolution. Evolution is both fact and theory. What, you don't believe that the fossil record actually consists of organisms that were alive at one point? I suppose they could all just be funny-shaped rocks, or that they were created in situ to fool us by cosmic pranksters, but again, the most parsimonious explanation is that they represent the remains of organisms that were alive at some point.I meant this to be short, and instead, it's a huge missive. By all means feel free to ignore any of my points. Don't feel like you have to respond to anything but this:What science does is create models that explain evidence, because that's the only way we can think about the world around us - via models in our heads. Models that explain the most evidence are, most likely, the most accurate descriptions of reality, but they're never the reality. We can never experience the reality - only the models of it we create.I believe that the scientific method generates the most accurate models of the world. Apparently you believe it doesn't. I can't think of any better way to find out who's right than to determine which way generates the most accurate predictions. In that test, science wins out, hands-down, over reading stories in a 2000-year-old book.