two important questions for Servant

Mike darlin',You are taking what a few ppl might think, and extrapolating it to mean "they are now even saying". Who is "they"?Servant's statement It more a matter of, "we haven't yet found a better explanation of ALL the evidence, therefore this is the theory we currently use"If you or Servant want to propose a new theory that fits ALL the evidence, please do.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Mike darlin',I think the issue is that yes, certain types of evidence MIGHT be evidence that COULD point towards creationism. It isn't "this evidence points towards evolution, and this evidence points towards creationism so both COULD be correct."How it works is this...Take ALL the evidence together. Come up with a hypothesis on how ALL this evidence fits together. Find more evidence, does it fit your hypothesis? Yes? good, repeat. No? change your hypothesis to now include the new evidence along with all the old evidence. Are you finding a lot of evidence that can't be explained by your hypothesis? scrap it and come up with a new one that DOES explain everything.Does all the evidence you find over 150 years continue to fit with the major points of your hypothesis with only minor changes to sections of it? Yes? You now have yourself a full blown theory. You continue to hold any evidence up to this theory to see if it fits, if it does you add it to the body evidence supporting your theory. If it doesn't you look to find out why. It may involve a total revamp of your theory or it may only involve a minor twink.What a lot of people fail to remember is that almost all scientists of 150 - 200 years ago WERE bible believing literalists who went out looking for evidence using a creationist mindset. They couldn't make it fit.[This message has been edited by Asgara, 04-18-2004]

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"