Some area sufficiently significant to warrant doubting the overall theory?
I'm not sure, rereading DrFrost's post 19 that everyone seems to be up in arms about, that s/he "doubts the overall theory". S/He makes the quite reasonable point that not everything about the ToE has the same evidential basis. I think s/he was essentially agreeing with you (or you with him/her) when you say:
The corrections and modifications are all concerned with clarifying its precise application in highly specific contexts, not with modifying its general mode of action.
That looks pretty much like what s/he was saying. I especially liked the part where s/he said:
quote:As for the original post, if you don't have a reason to disagree with science then why do so?
That doesn't sound like someone disagreeing fundamentally with the most important principle in biology to me.
Re: To Believe or Not Believe - That is the Question
Since it was your assertion that you knew the answer that an atheist would give, perhaps you could provide a summation of (at least) your perception of the question. Telling me to go back through 4 years of posts simply doesn't address the question. I'm curious as to what YOU think atheists might say. Thanks.