Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

We want to compare the two models--evolution and creation to see which model better fits the evidence we find through archaeological digs etc.The problem is in the interpretation of these finds--the evidence. You simply want to declare that the evidence supports macroevolution. But this is where the debate is. Creationists believe that the evidence supports sudden creation and not long slow development from one species into another. So....let the study begin and stop refusing to allow alternative interpretations of the evidence.I'll check back to see if anyone bothered to read the book that I recommended. Without an agreed upon starting point--that is, without us being on the same page about what Creation Science is in the first place, debate is impossible."What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker

Your remark:"I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing."That remark shows me that you do "not" know what Creation Science is--and worse, that you are too closedminded to ever be able to see what it is.

"What is Creation Science?" Morris/ParkerCreation Science does not address religion or God or Holy Scriptures of any kind. Many evolutionists say that, since creation requires a creator, whose work of creation cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory, that that very fact removes it from the domain of science. But evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory any more than creation. Evolution in the vertical sense--that is, "macroevolution," since it presumably requires immense spans of time. No instance of such macroevolution has ever been observed, in all recorded history, by any human being.True science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data.This does not mean, however, that the "origin results" the evidence in the world.., cannot be observed and tested. That is, we can define two "models" of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.According to the evolution model, the origin and developement of all things can be explained in terms of continuing natural laws and processes operating in a contained universe. The basis for the creation model is that at least some things must be attributed to completed supernatural processes in an open universe. These are really the only two possibilities.Please try to find out more about what this science is really about so that discussion can proceed.By-the-way, how many men do you actually know with the name Kelly? I am not a he.

Microevolution is supported in the creation model and we expect to see such things as natural selection and mutation within species--but never can these things lead to a new species--something that cannot be observed but only hypothesized. Creation Science does not address the cause of origins any more than evolution does. It is not a study of the creator--but of the created.I really think it is to your advantage to actually understand what creation science is.Also., I do not think that fundamentalism is something that has to be dealt with. It would be better to just understand it.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

that although it is your opinion that creationists have been refuted, that is far from the truth. I could say the same thing to you and declare that evolutionists have been refuted over and over again and that the evidence supports creation theory and not evolutionary theory (in the Darwinian sense.)Both creationists and evolutionists start with a hypothesis and then study the evidence to find support. Don't pretend like evolutionists are different in this respect. There is no way to see macroevolution. It is a theory. You have to study the evidence to find support. The fossil record is your enemy.I think that Catholic Scientist doesn't really know much about my theology or the Bible for that matter. That's why he needs to insult me.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden

But in truth, I am not enjoying myself here. It is frustrating to try and stay on topic because no one else does. I am simply responding to what I read--where I read it. There is too much interference and control over what we can say and where. I am new to this forum and I find it difficult to find anything or to remember where I have been. I know you said not to respond to this post here, but I don't know where else I should respond. Anyway, thanks for your politeness but I can't keep it straight here. I apologize for messing everyone up.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.