quote:well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE?
Where is faith required? I fail to see where faith is required when there is evidence to support every part of the ToE. Without time travel we will never be able to "prove" that evolution occured in the past through random mutation and natural selection. However, all of the existing evidence points towards all organisms sharing a single common ancestor and that changes over time were due to random mutation and natural selection. No faith is needed since the theory is supported by evidence and consistent with all of the evidence.
Christianity, on the other hand, does require faith since there is no scientific evidence for the Resurrection nor for the existence of God. There is also no evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, the special creation of organisms, nor a world wide flood. In fact, all of the evidence contradicts such beliefs.
I really don't understand why you claim that the ToE requires faith. Science is not about "believing" something, it is about accepting a theory as being consistent with the evidence we have at hand. Nothing more, nothing less. You can still believe that the theory is wrong, but you must do so with the understanding that it is consistent with the evidence, the evidence we find in God's Creation.
quote: Just how contentious is the relationship between birds and dinosaurs? I've heard that it is still, as you say, not settled yet. Are there indeed still legitimate doubts about this among those in the fields (biologists, taxonomists, etc)?
Like Paul said, there are still holdouts. The majority accept that birds are descended from dinosaurs. In fact, modern taxonomy places birds within the dinosaur clade.
quote:I will be the first to admit that my knowledge in this area is not vast. I really appriciate everyone's comments, thanks.
And thank you for the positive attitude. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but I do mind if they disagree because of a lack of knowledge. All I really ask is for creationists to know what the theory of evolution states and the evidence that supports it. If evolution is going to be shown to be wrong by creationists it only makes sense if they first understand what evolution is. It's kind of hard to falsify something if you don't understand what it is.
Anyway, we all appreciate your candor and your curiousity. All of us science geeks started that way, and continue to be curious. That's what makes science, learning and discovering new things to fulfill a curiosity.
quote:so if you commit a murder and it is on video tape, and there are witnesses and physical evidence fingerprints, DNA, etc. then we can only be relaiably confident that you did it, but we wouldn't have 100% proof?
Video tapes can be doctored using computer technology. Witnesses can be paid off. Physical evidence, such as DNA and fingerprints, can be planted at the scene. We can never be 100% sure that the above DID NOT happen. Therefore, we can never be 100% sure. We can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, but never 100% sure.
quote:wow now you are drawing straws. hey what ever you have to tell yourself to make yourself belive the lie, obviously reason has no part of it. and good luck arguing that one in court.
That is why someone is judged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not "guilty beyond any doubt". Even the court realizes that we can not be 100% sure of anything. It is very unreasonable to claim that a video was doctored or that evidence was planted. However, it is not impossible. This is also why science is never 100% sure. For all we know, the fossils were all planted in their particular sediments by a bunch of trickster aliens. However, the reasonable assumption is that they ended up in those sediments through natural mechanisms.