What about the information I gave on mutations? What about that post that is going to state how all those who believe that evolution is currently the best way to explain our origins are actually engaging in "religion"?

Question - Please answer this one K2w3po or whatever your name is!

If a guy came to you with no tangible evidence and told you that he was Christ incarnated and was here to bring salvation to the earth - would you believe him? If he said he was the son of God brought back to the earth to bring peace and tranquility - would you believe him? If this man said he had no proof other than a message from God of goodwill toward man - would you believe him? Answer the question.

If a group of scientists made a discovery, that could be supported by observational data, about the origins of life on earth that differed from the evolutionary theory - would I believe them? Yes - if it was tested and retested by independent teams and the results could be reproduced. I would change my views of evolution in a heartbeat if the scientific community made discoveries that lead to the revision or the discarding of the theory of evolution.

What if the guy who said he was Christ came down with 5 new commandments - would you follow them and change your views of religion? My guess is no. Science is not a religion. If creationism wants to be treated as a science it must withstand the scrutiny of the majority of the scientific community. Poking tiny holes and saying "God did it", is not enough evidence to tear apart the fabric of the evolutionary theory. Are you willing to admit that creationism could be revised or discarded when new evidence comes to light? Are you willing to agree that science "evolves" and religion doesn't? My guess is no. Address these questions or I am through having this debate with you. You have avoided the questions I ask from day one. It is time to place your opinions on these matters out in the open.

Scott

• It's KC2GWX - kc2gwx - May 22, 2002 - 18:56 UTC
  • Sorry, but you're not sticking to science - stormcrow - May 22, 2002 - 19:24 UTC
    • there's no such thing as a stormcrow - occupant - May 22, 2002 - 21:06 UTC
      • Friendly, sober, honest and true - stormcrow - May 22, 2002 - 22:46 UTC
        • it was not an insult but will respond to your implied question - occupant - May 22, 2002 - 23:28 UTC
          • oops..repost - occupant - May 22, 2002 - 23:29 UTC
          • Okay - stormcrow - May 23, 2002 - 03:38 UTC
            • you 'require' them to be right about dinosaurs and distant stars - occupant - May 23, 2002 - 05:47 UTC
              • I love to talk neuroscience - yanniru - May 23, 2002 - 14:14 UTC
                • "value of a theory is how much phenomena it explains" - occupant - May 23, 2002 - 15:09 UTC
                  • I went to medical school - yanniru - May 23, 2002 - 15:45 UTC
              • Neuroscience and reciprocal communications - stormcrow - May 23, 2002 - 19:07 UTC
                • you opinions are meaningless on these topics without those - occupant - May 23, 2002 - 21:42 UTC
                  • All right, let's make a deal - stormcrow - May 24, 2002 - 14:21 UTC
                    • See above - occupant - May 24, 2002 - 15:40 UTC
  • I am beginning to not like your demeanor in this forum - darwinpoodle - May 22, 2002 - 19:55 UTC
    • coming from darwinpoodle? he's already ruined as an evaluator - occupant - May 22, 2002 - 21:08 UTC
      • Hey hey - darwinpoodle - May 23, 2002 - 00:53 UTC
    • Not really - kc2gwx - May 22, 2002 - 22:30 UTC
      • Proof of the age of the universe - yanniru - May 23, 2002 - 13:27 UTC
        • Astronomy link - yanniru - May 23, 2002 - 13:39 UTC
      • grrrr, ... - darguuth - May 23, 2002 - 17:51 UTC
        • Logical? - kc2gwx - May 23, 2002 - 19:18 UTC
          • No offense taken ... - darguuth - May 23, 2002 - 20:18 UTC
            • Good - kc2gwx - May 24, 2002 - 02:19 UTC