jerryR34

I consider myself Christian and am part of the "RCC" =============================================================================================================== Does that mean the RCC = Christianity then? Nope. A brief walk through the history of the RCC should rectify this. I can't go into any more detail....they frown on talking about this here @ Worthy. PM me, and we can talk. one of the most interesting things I've seen in my meanderings in the interweb is the acceptance of Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc when evangelicals want to conflate the number of Christians to suit there needs (i.e. so many people believe it must be true...). The number approaches 2 billion with these groups included and about 800k when it's only evangelicals. I just want consistency...tell me Enoch, how many Christians are there? I can tell you there are at least 2x Hindus, 2xMuslims, 1x Budhists, 1xMormons...Please don't ever assert number of adherents is any indication of a correct belief.

Matter has always been. ====================================================================================================== Factually Incorrect. CITE source......? So you're saying the Universe is Eternal, eh? “The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.” [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.] 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.” Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston. Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012. “several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.” Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012 I will cite you: "The 1st Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science" states: Matter/Energy can not be Created or Destroyed...just change Form. " =================================================================================================== I like being CITED, Thanks. So what's the Problem? Ya see, The Laws of Thermodynamics are "NATURAL LAWS"...i.e., "Nature" can't Create or Destroy Matter or Energy. We are Here...well most of us; what's the last and only choice?? (Revelation 21:6) "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." infinite regress....it's turtles all the way down.

Matter has always been. ====================================================================================================== Factually Incorrect. CITE source......? So you're saying the Universe is Eternal, eh? “The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.” [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.] 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.” Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston. Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012. “several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.” Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012 I will cite you: "The 1st Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science" states: Matter/Energy can not be Created or Destroyed...just change Form. "

" Which one of these disciplines Proffered DNA had a Helical Structure: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. CITE Source....?" take your pick...: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=germ+theory+and+evolutionary+biology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Matter has always been.

========================================================================================================= Nope, Jesus Knew....HE'S GOD. If you were a Jew and you knew the EXACT day of your Messiah arriving....would you kill HIM? They apparently were unaware of THIS Specific Prophecy. Do you have some kind of a Point here??.... Where in scripture did it say a month was 30 days or a year 360 as you posted?

================================================================================================================== Why do you need "Peer Review" if they are using the Scientific Method? Please post any Postulate Proffered by any of these: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. So show us ANY postulate....just ONE postulated by any of these that is in Accordance with The Scientific Method.....? Civilization has made tremendous strides in quality of life (health) and lifespan since the implementation of the scientific method in concert with peer review. We need peer review so science can correct itself (i.e. peking man). I offer Germ Theory as one postulate that has come about via scientific method. I could also offer plate tectonics, language, writing, etc..., but you only asked for one. and a DNA example The basic elements of the scientific method are illustrated by the following example from the discovery of the structure of DNA: Question: Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. It had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[27] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear. Hypothesis: Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure.[28] Prediction: If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[29][30] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick and Vand[31] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand. Experiment: Rosalind Franklin crystallized pure DNA and performed X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape. Analysis: When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[32][33] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition and about molecular interactions such as hydrogen bonds.[34] The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article. wikii

====================================================================================================================== It's Triangulated from the reigns of Herod and Tiberius along with Passover and 5 -10 other Historical Facts. (SEE: The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson). It's quite well established. Much comes from Luke where.... One of the most distinguished of all New Testament archaeologists, Sir William Ramsay, is said to have been converted partially through his surprised realization of the precise accuracy of Luke's depiction of conditions in the first century. In his epochal work, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915), Ramsay said: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness" (p. 81). He added later: ". . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (p. 222). I can wrap my head around it, I'm just waiting for a little something more than a Baseless Conjecture. More Importantly, Apparently ALL were unaware of the Prophecy....How do I know? Because they Crucified Jesus. And, Jesus even alluded to it directly.... (Luke 19:41-44) " And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, {42} Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. {43} For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, {44} And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." This is the reason why Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD....they weren't reading/studying Scripture; and "they" were held Accountable. Quite Instructive! Are you saying that Jesus and those who called for his crucifiction were unaware of the prophecies? and...on the calender thing...from http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm Jewish Calendar Level: Basic • Based on moon cycles instead of sun cycles • "Leap months" are added to sync up with sun cycles • Used to be calculated by observation • Calculated mathematically since 4th century • Years are numbered from Creation A few years ago, I was in a synagogue, and I overheard one man ask another, "When is Chanukkah this year?" The other man smiled slyly and replied, "Same as always: the 25th of Kislev." This humorous comment makes an important point: the date of Jewish holidays does not change from year to year. Holidays are celebrated on the same day of the Jewish calendar every year, but the Jewish year is not the same length as a solar year on the civil calendar used by most of the western world, so the date shifts on the civil calendar. Background and History The Jewish calendar is based on three astronomical phenomena: the rotation of the Earth about its axis (a day); the revolution of the moon about the Earth (a month); and the revolution of the Earth about the sun (a year). These three phenomena are independent of each other, so there is no direct correlation between them. On average, the moon revolves around the Earth in about 29½ days. The Earth revolves around the sun in about 365¼ days, that is, about 12.4 lunar months. The civil calendar used by most of the world has abandoned any correlation between the moon cycles and the month, arbitrarily setting the length of months to 28, 30 or 31 days. The Jewish calendar, however, coordinates all three of these astronomical phenomena. Months are either 29 or 30 days, corresponding to the 29½-day lunar cycle. Years are either 12 or 13 months, corresponding to the 12.4 month solar cycle. The lunar month on the Jewish calendar begins when the first sliver of moon becomes visible after the dark of the moon. In ancient times, the new months used to be determined by observation. When people observed the new moon, they would notify the Sanhedrin. When the Sanhedrin heard testimony from two independent, reliable eyewitnesses that the new moon occurred on a certain date, they would declare the rosh chodesh (first of the month) and send out messengers to tell people when the month began. The problem with strictly lunar calendars is that there are approximately 12.4 lunar months in every solar year, so a 12-month lunar calendar is about 11 days shorter than a solar year and a 13-month lunar is about 19 longer than a solar year. The months drift around the seasons on such a calendar: on a 12-month lunar calendar, the month of Nissan, which is supposed to occur in the Spring, would occur 11 days earlier in the season each year, eventually occurring in the Winter, the Fall, the Summer, and then the Spring again. On a 13-month lunar calendar, the same thing would happen in the other direction, and faster. To compensate for this drift, the Jewish calendar uses a 12-month lunar calendar with an extra month occasionally added. The month of Nissan occurs 11 days earlier each year for two or three years, and then jumps forward 30 days, balancing out the drift. In ancient times, this month was added by observation: the Sanhedrin observed the conditions of the weather, the crops and the livestock, and if these were not sufficiently advanced to be considered "spring," then the Sanhedrin inserted an additional month into the calendar to make sure that Pesach (Passover) would occur in the spring (it is, after all, referred to in the Torah as Chag he-Aviv, the Festival of Spring!). A year with 13 months is referred to in Hebrew as Shanah Me'uberet (pronounced shah-NAH meh-oo-BEH-reht), literally: a pregnant year. In English, we commonly call it a leap year. The additional month is known as Adar I, Adar Rishon (first Adar) or Adar Alef (the Hebrew letter Alef being the numeral "1" in Hebrew). The extra month is inserted before the regular month of Adar (known in such years as Adar II, Adar Sheini or Adar Beit). Note that Adar II is the "real" Adar, the one in which Purim is celebrated, the one in which yahrzeits for Adar are observed, the one in which a 13-year-old born in Adar becomes a Bar Mitzvah. Adar I is the "extra" Adar. In the fourth century, Hillel II established a fixed calendar based on mathematical and astronomical calculations. This calendar, still in use, standardized the length of months and the addition of months over the course of a 19 year cycle, so that the lunar calendar realigns with the solar years. Adar I is added in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th and 19th years of the cycle. The current cycle began in Jewish year 5758 (the year that began October 2, 1997). If you are musically inclined, you may find it helpful to remember this pattern of leap years by reference to the major scale: for each whole step there are two regular years and a leap year; for each half-step there is one regular year and a leap year. This is easier to understand when you examine the keyboard illustration below and see how it relates to the leap years above.

======================================================================= What, that you're using an "fallacious" reference to make a point about Pre-Conceived Bias. I think I got it. I think this speaks to the issue a little more accurately... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. {Emphasis Mine} Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. What's your point? I've already asserted that there is a difference between learning and preconceived notions. Sure there is influence, but true science overcomes that with new evidence. See the difference Enoch? =========================================================================================================== What is "TRUE" science......? And as Professor Gould said....."each" Scientist brings baggage. Also a Reification (Fallacy)------"science" doesn't overcome anything....it's not alive. True science is the scientific method and peer review. You can get wrapped around the axel on reification all you want (even capitalize it), but that is only a distraction from the point. When applied appropriately, the scientific method (you are being pedantic if you bring up reification here) overcomes the scientists "baggage". To get back on point, Hawking does not take God into account in any equation he postulates. It is not necessary for his purposes, again, for his purposes, God is irrelevant. In my opinion, that seems to bother creationists more that anything.

Baseless Generalized Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy). For Instance.....? Are they as Vague as The Daniel passage I spent 4 posts on? This was in the context of my attention acuity in response to someone with a detailed foretelling such as the Daniel Passage. Do you a point you'd like to make? The Bible and history cannot agree on when and if Jesus was crucified, not to mention changes in calendars and the arbitrary nature of time keeping and the vagaries of weeks vs. weeks...it is a stretch at best to say the prophecy of Daniel was accurate. Then you have the issue of the Gospels being written after Jesus death and written in an attempt to fulfill prophecy. You would never accept such unsupported assertions from anyone arguing a point against you Enoch. ====================================================================================== Support.....? Because it's another Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) What Calendars? And it's Irrelevant. GOD uses 30 day months and 360 day years from Genesis to Revelation. This Prophecy is made to Daniel and to "Thy People". Who's are Daniel's People....The Jews. The Jews have Weeks of Days, Weeks of Weeks, Weeks of Months, and Weeks of Years. This passage is referencing Weeks of Years. How so....? I thought I explained it quite concisely. What relevancy does this have to Daniel....in the "OLD Testament"? None. And another Baseless "Non-Sequitur" Assertion (Fallacy). Support......? Calendars...how do we know when Jesus rode into Jerusalem...we have to go back and get the date using our calendars. How do we know what day it happened? If you can't wrap you head around someone writing something after the fact to fulfill a prophecy, then, I guess you would think it is a "Non-Sequitur".

======================================================================= What, that you're using an "fallacious" reference to make a point about Pre-Conceived Bias. I think I got it. I think this speaks to the issue a little more accurately... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. {Emphasis Mine} Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. What's your point? I've already asserted that there is a difference between learning and preconceived notions. Sure there is influence, but true science overcomes that with new evidence. See the difference Enoch?

========================================================================================== Baseless Generalized Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy). For Instance.....? Are they as Vague as The Daniel passage I spent 4 posts on? This was in the context of my attention acuity in response to someone with a detailed foretelling such as the Daniel Passage. Do you a point you'd like to make? The Bible and history cannot agree on when and if Jesus was crucified, not to mention changes in calendars and the arbitrary nature of time keeping and the vagaries of weeks vs. weeks...it is a stretch at best to say the prophecy of Daniel was accurate. Then you have the issue of the Gospels being written after Jesus death and written in an attempt to fulfill prophecy. You would never accept such unsupported assertions from anyone arguing a point against you Enoch.

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world. I'm not sure I understand your point - how does this example demonstrate that preconceived notions are deleterious to good science? All science requires preconceived notions just in order to get started. Science hasn't proven that our memory is reliable, that reality is reliable, that we have the capacity to accurately understand nature, etc. Those are all presuppositions that are simply assumed, and yet are necessary for the reliability of the enterprise of science. Additionally these are all things that make perfect sense if there is an orderly Creator who created an orderly creation, within which are beings made in His image and are therefore able to sense and comprehend His creation, and yet naturalism has no explaination of why would could trust any of these things if we're all just matter in motion, physically projected by some mechanism of universal expansion. Further, every hypothesis rests upon the shoulders of a world of previously confirmed hypotheses. You don't test everything every time you test something. Could you clarify what you mean please? There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself. A simple example is Galileo. There was a preconceived notion in Christianity that the Earth was the center of all creation. Galileo pointed his telescope to the sky and noticed that there were some bodies that orbited a non-Earth object. We built on Galileo's observations and did away with the preconceived notion. Hope that clarifies it some for you. ================================================================================================ Equivocation (Fallacy). RCC doesn't = Christianity. Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center? Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe. It's called "The Axis of Evil". What do you think about that? What do i think of that? I think you miss the point.

Even if this "prophecy" was true it wouldn't necessitate that the rest of the Bible is accurate about the nature of the creator. If I was to predict something in the future and it came to pass, does that mean everything I say is true? =================================================================================== It most assuredly is True as I've comprehensively Illustrated. I agree. It's cumulative, See steps I and II in previous post. As I said, it's a Cumulative Scenario. AND....if you told me something of the utter scale, magnitude and detail of This Specific Prophecy (There are literally over 1800 Prophecies) and it came to pass exactly as foretold; Well...You would surely capture my attention x 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ------> The prophecies in the Bible are so vague as to render any meaningful probability analysis worthless. You can add as many 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as you want.

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world. I'm not sure I understand your point - how does this example demonstrate that preconceived notions are deleterious to good science? All science requires preconceived notions just in order to get started. Science hasn't proven that our memory is reliable, that reality is reliable, that we have the capacity to accurately understand nature, etc. Those are all presuppositions that are simply assumed, and yet are necessary for the reliability of the enterprise of science. Additionally these are all things that make perfect sense if there is an orderly Creator who created an orderly creation, within which are beings made in His image and are therefore able to sense and comprehend His creation, and yet naturalism has no explaination of why would could trust any of these things if we're all just matter in motion, physically projected by some mechanism of universal expansion. Further, every hypothesis rests upon the shoulders of a world of previously confirmed hypotheses. You don't test everything every time you test something. Could you clarify what you mean please? There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself. A simple example is Galileo. There was a preconceived notion in Christianity that the Earth was the center of all creation. Galileo pointed his telescope to the sky and noticed that there were some bodies that orbited a non-Earth object. We built on Galileo's observations and did away with the preconceived notion. Hope that clarifies it some for you.

As all animals were created and named by Adam, no speciation is necessary for creationism. As usual, creation "science" has a parasitic relationship with actual science. Name any science discipline that creation science has advanced. ..

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please? If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other? If iis evidence for evolution, do you accept evolution? Can you define species in the creation "science" view of things? Why don't you just answer question, Jerry???

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please? If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other? If iis evidence for evolution, do you accept evolution? Can you define species in the creation "science" view of things? Why don't you just answer question, Jerry???

Hmmm, Lets see: Appeal To Authority; Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority So you're "asserting" that if I brought these Experts in their Field into a courtroom "evolution on trial" the Judge would throw them out on the grounds that it's Fallacious and they shouldn't speak to evolution because it's "Outside their Scope", eh? Roger Lewin, Ph.D., British Anthropologist (staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years). Gerald Allan Kerkut Ph.D., was a noted British zoologist and physiologist. (Dean of Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology at University of Southampton) evolutionist. Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century. Leslie Orgel PhD Chemistry, Legendary Origin of Life Researcher. (evolutionist). Pierre Grasse PhD Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University. Legend in Biology. Theodosius Dobzhansky (Geneticist and The Father of 20th Century Evolution Theory)...."Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378,). John Sanford, PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') (ex-evolutionist). Author of Genetic Entropy. Speaking to....Genetics. If they can't speak to "evolution" with "Authority".......who can? LOL Your charge is a Baseless "erroneous" Assertion; Ironically, Fallacious. And you didn't come close to touching any of the Numerous Postulates outlined and discussed @ Length/Detail....hmmm Now to get back on topic, can you or anyone else speak to these... DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE. That's just the Hardware! DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer! To refute: 1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR.... 2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence. Tell us: How did Stupid Atoms write their own Software.....? so, why, when non-creationists bring the overwhelming evidence of evolution from so many different fields of science do you discredit them? You are cherry-picking your authorities to match your preconceived notions....and again...preconceived notions fly in the face of science. and...before you go down that road, what we have learned in science is not a preconceived notion...it is learning...

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please? If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other? If iis evidence for evolution, do you accept evolution? Can you define species in the creation "science" view of things?

I find the title of this thread ironic. Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it. Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution. That hurts their argument.

One thing we should keep in mind is that most scientists don't base their evaluation of evidence on whether it supports God or not, but God is irrelevant in their assessment of the evidence.

Just because I don't answer doesn't mean I don't listen.