What is the appeal of evolution?

What is the purpose of this thread?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You have to remember that science journals are the Bible of the evolutionist. Whenever an idea is written there it is treated as fact by the evolutionist.They don't speculate about the wide variety of possible ages because once it is written down in a science journal it is gospel to the evolutionist. Someone somewhere down the line wrote that the earth was 4.56 billion years old and from there on it was never questioned or updated when evidence to the contrary would arise. Similar things happened with Haeckel and the death of the dinosaurs.{he he, this is fun}

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

So it is not that any of has investigated this for ourselves and honestly found evolution convincing but rather it is simply the dogma we have digested from some societal indoctrination?If so, how utterly and incomprehensibly insulting of you. Percy was not talking just about people. He is questioning why millions of SCIENTISTS always converge upon the same paradigm AS IT IS SHIFTING!His parody is totally lost on you. It has nothing to do with the layperson on the street but rather the educated masses who drive our scientific and technological cultures. Many of us here on this forum BELONG to that culture. Therefore things like your next comment: Is nothing more than intellectualized ad-hom. You know nothing about the expertise or the effort of the individuals who choose to reject your worldview for the one supported by the evidence. Many of these individuals are your peers on this forum. The people who work deepest in these fields challange these notions every single day that they work. Every time a rock is dated, every time someone examines population dynamics, every time we get new exciting astronomical data, these theories that describe an old earth/universe and evolution are TESTED. If the data does not match up we ask WHY. When we find the answers to WHY and they are not because of some human error then we are FORCED to change our thinking. That is why science changes. It is questioned NECESSARILY! The scientific method REQUIRES that theories create predicitions that can be tested.Questioned = TestingThe very fact that these theories are tested flies right in the face of your rediculous claims. No one is talking about the layman. Welcome to the conversation NJ. The uneducated layman often gets it wrong in more than just origins. What Percy is addressing is the scientific community. It is reasonable though to assume also that the scientifically educated layman is NOT indoctrinated as you would like to think. If it makes you feel better that we are all pansies in an "evo" dominated world then by all means do. Just don't expect positions like the ones you have put forward in this thread to given any respect by anyone other than your creo friends.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Alternativly we could question where the source of the discord comes from biologists studying evolution or from geologists studying the age of the earth. Did geologists empower the evolutionists who took over from there? Did evolutionary theory drive the geologists to interpret the age of the earth to fit into evolutionary theory? If tomorrow someone discovered that it would supposidly take 10 billion years to evolve humans, would geologists suddently discover that the earth is 10 billion years old?WHo wears the pants in this weird concensus you speak of? The geologists or the biologists?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Lets not try to get too far off of what Percy is trying to ask here.Geologists may have started it although they did not exhibit the sort of concensus that is apparrent today among both geologists and evolutionists. In the early days, the question of the age of the earth was wildly speculated about since of course there is no actual evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. It wasn't until evolution arrived on the scene that the rediculous 4.5 billion year number was dreamed up and conferred upon.Beyond the age of the earth question though, geologists seems to operate in lock step with evolution. This adds a layer of complexity fo the problem Percy is looking at because it is a seperate field of inquiry. When a new fossil turns up, it inevitably ends up fitting right into both the geologic and evolutionary fantasy. There does not seem to be any reason for this.Since we KNOW all fossils are a result of a global flood 4.5 thousand years ago, there is a big problem trying to understand this weird tendency for scientists from totally different fields to agree as to both its supposed "age" and evolutionary lineage.Whatever this phenomenon, it must affect both geology and biology in the same way. If it is a social phenomenon, we have to identify whatever synchronization process is used within and between the two cultures that allows these types of consensus to be reached. The alternative is some kind of controlling agent for which both of these fields of science are subject too.Discovering any of these would be the final death blow to the lie that is evolution.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)