| No offense meant there, but it really is enforced in schools like nothing else. |
I imagine it is, just like gravity, or Boyle's Law, or that George Washington was the first president of the US.
In other words it's "enforced" in schools because it's true (in that it's an accurate description of the history of life on earth) and schools are there to teach things that are true.
| When I came to realize that old earth was theory and not fact I suddenly God came alive to me. |
Evolution is both theory and fact. That evolution happened is a fact. The model we use to describe it is the theory. Just like gravity is both fact and theory - that gravity exists is fact. The math (the model) we use to make calculations about it is a theory.
| I submit that this is because this evo god was to weak to capture your heart. |
No, it's because there's no such things as gods, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about evolution, not religion.
| I did, however, qualify that by saying that my desires do not come before his plan. |
Fine. So look at the world and see his plan - evolution through natural selection and random mutation. What's so hard about that? You keep saying that you won't let your desires about God dictate terms to him, but you won't put that into action. Why is that?
| I am very certain about the authorship of the Bible. |
As a matter of faith, or as evidence? If you take the authorship of the Bible on faith then we have nothing to talk about. If you take it from evidence then there's a number of people here who beg to differ. (I'm not qualified to debate the authroship of the bible, and after all, to me it doesn't matter - it can't be the word of God because there's no such thing as God.)
| The fact that the authors of the Gospels and Epistles all (excepting John) eventually died horrible deaths in the defense of their stories is also overwhelming. |
Not a fact. Not only are a number of the bible authors unknown, but the stories of their martyrdom are merely legend. Anyway, what would it matter? Every religion has martyrs. Why should I accept your martyrs as any more evidence for your beliefs than you accept other martyrs for other faiths'?
| As a matter of fact I do believe that creation is a powerful revelation, but it is general revelation and can only reveal so much. The scriptures are specific revelation and God through our languages conveys much more specific ideas about himself. |
So, you don't so much worship God as you worship the Bible. Isn't there a commandment against that? Idols, etc?
| In truth evolution falls into this category because it cannot be categorically disproven. |
To the contrary. There are a number of potential falsifications of evolutionary theory. For instance, if organisms did not inherit DNA from their parents, evolution would not be true. If cladograms inferred from genetic similarity had absolutely no correlation with fossil record stratiography, evolution would not be true. If natural selection never altered allele frequencies, evolution would not be true.
There's a number of conditions in which evolution would not be true. It's just that none of those conditions is true, so while evolution is falsifiable, it hasn't been falsified yet.
| For this reason Origins is and always will be a pseudoscience |
Origins is not evolution. Don't change the subject, please.
| On biologists I still maintain that there are many brilliant scientists who believe in creation. |
Show me some who have testable theories of creation. Show me some who have published peer-reviewed research involving models of creation.
There may be brilliant people involved in creation. Honestly the skill involved in many creationist deceptions demonstrates that. But the minute they leave the realms of falsifiable models, they've ceased to be scientists.
| For the same reasons it can never be fully disproven. |
I've given you several falsifications of evolution. I imagine that if you thought hard enough you could come up with more, yourself.
| You're absurd response does not detract from the fact entire races have claimed to view him in the dead of day. It only distracts from the point. |
No, it is the point. When people see God, they don't tend to see the same thing - or else they could agree on how many beards he has, for instance.
Whatever they're seeing, it's not God, because if it was, their accounts would be more similar.
If they can't answer basic questions about God, then how can they claim to have seen him?
| Where we differ is that I believe that natural causes flow from God. |
That's still true for the theistic evolutionist.
| My whole point was that the church of the "Dark Ages" was not representative of the church. |
No. But sociologically it's representative of what happens to science when you start thinking that the solution to every unsolved problem is God. Why solve any problem if the answer can always be God?
| It claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter) through around 50 men over 1500 years. Quite the conspiracy, eh? |
Claims of the Bible cannot be used to substantiate claims of the Bible. That's fallacious circular reasoning. After all I can write a hundred books that claim to be written by God or the Holy Spirit or Santa Claus, and support them the same way you support the Bible.
If you want to substantiate the Bible, you can't use the Bible to do it. Is that the sort of reasoning you think is going to get you far in the sciences?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
