God's creation-witnessed???

I have no idea when evolution began.No one has to have been there, evolution is observed every day.Evolutionists do not try to prove the big bang, they only show that organisms evolve. God may have placed the first cells on Earth, where the first cells came from has nothing to do with evolution.Brian.

quote:

---

The truth is neither creationists nor evolutionists were around when such things happened. We are both very faithful dont you say

---

I suppose you don't believe that a witnessless crime can ever be solved, and that there's no such thing as forensics, right?Do you think that we believe that Pompeii was destroyed by an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius because of faith, or because there is a great deal of evidence left?Come on, Jazzlover, I hope you are smarter than this.

When you first had replicating systems with a distinction between a genotype and a phenotype. We don't know the time, but it is somewhere between 4.5 and 3.5 billion years. Nobody was there, of course. What does that have to do with anything?Biologists don't try to prove the big bang, and cosmologists don't try to prove biological evolution. What kind of question is that?The question hints at a deeper misunderstanding. Neither biologists nor cosmologists came to evolution or to the big bang as a kind of prior assumption to which they have a faith based committment and a desire to prove it to the exclusion of other models.What scientists do is try to build models to explain phenomena. A successful model is one that can be stringently tested, and which explains a wealth of otherwise unrelated data. The most dramatic instances are "predictions" of observations which are made before the confirming observation themselves; although the role of pure prediction is somewhat inflated in popular discussion of the history and philosophy of science.In any case, the success of evolution, and the big bang, is classic scientific progress. It would be misleading to say anyone spends much time trying to prove them. What scientists do is try to explore the details. When the details match up with expections of the model, this is confirmation, and not very interesting. When the details give more depth in insights, this is often useful progress, allowing the models to be refined and made more detailed as well. This is progress, and exciting.When the details of observation conflict with what would be expected from the model, that is best of all. It rarely resulting in wholesale rejection of a model that already has a welath of confirming evidence, but it can result in signficant changes and new directions for our knowledge of the world.This is all lost on creationists, who are effectively hoping for a return to scientific models that are from medieval times or earlier. This will not happen.Cheers -- Sylas

Ok, so we all weren't there for any of this. So we believe what we were told in the bible. But as no one was actually around to WRITE it in the bible, I don't have a belief in it at all.

---

"I no longer fear hell, but have grown accustomed to it."