I was referring to conclusion before evidence.
I doubt you can deny that is what you did.
I had evidence way before I made any conclusion...I'm just sorry that you are blind to the gifts that are all around us. I believe that it is science who makes all its conclusions fit its scant evidence.
If you think both sides have equal evidence
you've not studied nor thought much. Not just
taking a swipe- stating obvious fact.
You think you are stating the obvious, but I wonder if you would even know if you had been hoodwinked by the power of suggestion?.....science does not have evidence for macro-evolution at all. It has evidence for adaptation which is limited to producing variety within a taxonomic family, but science only assumes that it can go beyond the boundaries of what it can test. You do understand that assumptions are not facts, and that suggestions are not proof of what science wants you to believe?
You have faith that their conclusions are correct...but what if they're not?
IF creation were true, the evidence would all
be on its side. It is the other way 'round.
You think so? I guess it depends on what you consider to be "evidence". You see, science can only interpret evidence and it usually interprets it to suit the theory.....not the other way around. We see the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions based on overall human experience. Nothing comes from nothing and life did not just spring into existence all by itself for no apparent reason......it is too complex to ever have popped up on its own, undirected. It demonstrates planning which requires forethought. Forethought requires intelligence and creation demonstrates the kind of intelligence that would make human intellect seem like no intellect at all IMO.
"Equal" is exactly what you have when two belief systems collide. Science has no solid evidence for abiogenesis or macro-evolution or any real proof that single celled organisms morphed themselves into creatures the size of a multi-story building over millions of years. Show us how dinosaurs evolved from something you need a microscope to even see. You talk about all this evidence.....so where is it?
That you can and do "choose" what to believe really
expresses so much about how you think, opposite
to science, opposite to real research.
There is nothing "real" about the research...conclusions are drawn from bias, not proof......its all smoke and mirrors, based on nothing but suggestion and assumption about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago when no one was around to tell us anything....throw in some really complicated diagrams and you have the masses worshipping at your feet. Why? Because they want to appear to be the intelligent ones.....only uneducated morons believe in creation......right? Won't it be interesting to find out?
I accept ToE as I have done many long hours in lecture,
lab, library and field. I understand it.
Dogs can learn to do all sorts of things when they are trained with rewards.....when you do long hours in lectures, whose words and ideas are you absorbing? Who is training you to see things that are not there in reality? What expectations are there when experiments are done? Aren't students trained to look for pre-conceived outcomes, dependent upon pre-programmed expectations? You find what you are looking for....they make sure of it.
When you have basically thrown God out the door...you don't want him creeping back now do you...? So you have to keep him out at all costs.....large egos can't afford to have egg on face.
This is not true of you.
There is no, zero chance you've actually investigated the
validity of the evidence.
I have read everything that evolutionists have ever given me. If you think you can provide substantiated evidence for macro-evolution that does not require faith or belief, then by all means present it.....you'll be the first.
The man who is closest to your position, with vastly more
knowledge, has a PhD in paleontology, but is a yec.
He says if all the evidence turned against yec, he'd still
be yec, as that is what the bible seems to indicate.
THAT is a "belief". That is the distilled essence of intellectual
dishonesty.
I do not subscribe to YEC beliefs. I believe in an old earth and an old universe, with creative periods of very long duration. No evolution is required to fill in all those gaps that science has no answers for. I know where life originated and I see how the Creator has skillfully and deliberately fashioned all of his creations.....including the non-biological things that could never have evolved or happened by chance....you know like the placement of the earth in relation to the sun, the size and the shape of it.....the tilt of its axis and the speed of its rotation...the placement of its moon...the mixture of gases in its atmosphere...its ozone layer protecting earth's inhabitants from the sun's radiation.....and the many systems upon which life depends which no thinking person could imagine are just flukes.
Is it just another fortunate accident that fresh water falls from the sky when the oceans are full of water that most living things cannot drink?
How many flukes does it take for intelligent people to stop and say.....yeah, it is all a bit too co-incidental....but do they do that? NO! With religious passion, they defend their beliefs like it was a religion.
Science is a culture of doubt. Religion is a culture of faith.
"Science is culture of doubt" eh?....wow, its funny how it is never presented that way....you have the likes of Dawkins and Coyne strutting about stages like peacocks spouting "facts" to adoring audiences that they can't prove. Yours is just as much "a culture of faith". You can't see it though, can you? Its presented as fact but there are no facts where there is no proof. It's never presented as a suggestion with doubts attached, is it?
faith, belief as a choice, zero to do with evidence.
It is a profound misreading to think they are in any
way equivalent.
You can think that if you wish...I know what sounds more intelligent to me. I see the same evidence that you do, but I come to a vastly different conclusion. To each his/her own.
