Is evolution or creation science?

[Isaiah 6:8]

I have no problem applying it to other fields, doesn't mean I accept what you're saying is accurate though. I have seen many creationists before talk about the big bang and biological evolution and so on as if they are all dependent on each other or part of the same scientific theory, so I wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

I know you only accept the biological theory of evolution, and ignore how the rest must tie together. I will not dispute that here. You have already shown you believe in all theories that exclude Genesis as the creation of everything.

On that here is a thought, if one, only one of those things, such as the cosmological origins of the universe were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false would that effect your view on the other fields?

Personal experience is usually such a small sample size that you cannot extrapolate it to the general population; my personal experience is close to the opposite of yours, probably because of where we live. I don't actually recall making this claim before, I've claimed that most clergy accept evolution, and most scientists that are religious accept evolution, but never the general public that I recall. But if you want to contain it to those who've studied it, I suggest you look at scientists that are theistic evolutionists, which is folds greater than scientists who reject evolution. As far as clergy, they would be most knowledgeable regarding the religious side of the question, and most of them (along with a lot of big denominations) accept evolution as seen in the Clergy Letter Project and it's antithesis the Creation Letter Project.

Again, there is no facts backing this up, just observation. That was my point.

I'm not playing word games, I just expressed the view of the scientific consensus. Perhaps what is throwing you off is that biologists don't really distinguish between micro and macro evolution beyond convenience; they are the same thing just on different scales. I understand that creationists make a big deal out of micro and macro, and I'm willing to discuss the two and how they're related and such. In fact, using creationist definitions, I agree that just observing microevolution doesn't confirm macroevolution, other evidence is required to support such a hypothesis - i.e. the fossil record and genetics. Evolution doesn't state that breeds are due to random chance; randomness plays a part but there are very salient non-random parts in the process too. In addition, evolution states that offspring must be similar to their parents, otherwise the whole notion of heredity is thrown out the window. So evolution wouldn't work any other way than having dogs produce dogs. Over many successive generations eventually the original generation and the final generation would be so different that you could say they aren't the same "kind" (whatever that means). Depending on the parameters you employ this could take a few years to a few billion years.

We have observed speciation in the wild and in lab, we've observed it so much that scientistis have been able to classify different types of speciation. If Worthy doesn't take this down it is a great source on speciation: Observed instances of speciation

There is also a lot of evidence to support it beyond direct observation, island species are a good start. Another good one is ring species like the Ensatina Salamanders.

Are you familiar with the creationist concept of "baramin"? For example, are coyotes and wolves the same kind? Are all the species of zebra the same kind? Horses and donkeys? Camels and llamas? Out of the hundreds of thousands of beetle species how many are in separate kinds? The point here being if you say that a "kind" includes two or more species, speciation must have taken place to produce two distinct species from a single ancestral kind. Even Answers in Genesis accepts speceiation and is under their list of arguments creationists shouldn't use : AiG AiG quote 2

"Speciation has been observed to occur in as little as a few years as seen in guppies, lizards, fruit flies, mosquitoes, finches, and mice." .... "Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world. This is especially well illustrated in the dog kind in which current members (e.g., coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs) are confirmed to be descended from an ancestral type of wolf."

Other creationist sites that accept evolution are creation wiki and biblicalcreation.org.

No they do not accept evolution, they accept Speciation. With no chance of evolving. You are putting words in there mouths, and playing word games. I agree with speciation I have already said that. You say that it can go from reptiles to birds. Again with the word games.

From creation wiki

With cases of speciation the conclusion is clear if following observational science. Speciation will not produce radical biological structure dissimilarity resulting in a different animal, such is needed to support molecules-to-man evolution, but rather deeply unique and wide-ranging phenotype diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.

Beyond phenotype expression, any other conclusion will not suffice but rely on extrapolation that assumes deep time.

There is always going to be avocation of ideas, but ultimately it comes down to the evidence. Eventually the theory/model will break down as it can't produce accurate predictions and/or new evidence disproves it.

Unless someone has a vested intrest in keeping the model going. If you really think about it there are millions of dollars and reputations at stake. There is very clear motive to hid and skew the truth.

Sure, but the point is can you show me who is and who isn't explaining the facts through their theory/model? You said in the OP, correct me if I'm wrong, that if facts were explained through the theory instead of creating the theory than it isn't science. I'm showing you two examples where science has a model, and used that model to explain the facts within that model.

Yes but they took facts to build the original model. If the original model is wrong people often try to force the facts to fit rather then throw away the model.

So you started a thread about how evolution isn't science, but you aren't even going to attempt to give me any examples of how it isn't science? How have I played word games or tried to move the line of evidence and proof? I'd like to have a discussion on the issues raised in the thread so far, but it is kind of hard to do so when you refuse to discuss the issues and accuse me of playing games.

I did make a statment and a link to some. I used the links as my wife wanted me to finish up. Sorry for the shortcut.

Yes, I remember that thread, I participated in it. From what I remember, we talked a little on how ERV's support evolution, and someone came back with a creationist article refuting ERV's, however the creationist article didn't address anything salient about the subject at hand.

You missed the point. The point is that there are two viewpoints on the same evidence. It fits two theories. As you have stated you need to choose the best one.

It is my understanding that the point of the thread is to show that evolution isn't science, and possibly disprove evolution. Anyways, what evidence has been ignored that flies in the face of the theory? I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Sun; originally it was thought that the Sun got its energy via chemical burning which wouldn't last very long, but now we know that it is done via fusion via the proton-proton chain and that makes the Sun last much longer, somewhere around 8-9 billion years which about half of it has been spent so far.

That fact was taken based on a atomic fueled sun and therefore the point stands. Only one million years ago the earth would be close to or inside the sun itself.

I just thought that it would be critical to the discussion to talk about what science is and what it involves as a process, if nothing else to ensure that everyone is on the same page, given that the title of the thread is "Is evolution or creation science?" Once we establish an acceptable definition or working understanding of science, answering the OP question would be much easier and straightforward, IMHO.

You have shown before that how you define science is completely subjective to your point of view. If it lines up with your beliefs you will take facts as evidence at face value. If the facts do not line up with your world view you will attempt to change it or point out the flaws in it. As evidenced with you trying to change the evidence of the sun. The evidence is there you can not handle it so you tried to change the terms of he evidence rather then think that there may be something there.

[artsylady]

Neither is science because the scientific method mandates: hypothesis, prediction, experimentation conclusion.

In evolution, the fish to man story, dinosaurs to cows, big bang, neandertal to human, dinosaur to bird - all of these theories and hundreds more like them go from hypothesis to conclusion and skip the prediction and experimentation part.

There was a time about a hundred years ago when they used to do the prediction and experimentation part, but since that didn't work out, they now don't bother. Today, they just leave those steps out and still manage to call is science, although it's actually philosophy.

[artsylady]

That's why this forum should not read "Faith versus science" but rather "Evolution versus Creation" - both are studied by scientists, but both are faith based.

[artsylady]

I'm still curious to see the evidence against evolution, and why evolution isn't science.

Neither creation nor evolution is science because the scientific method mandates: hypothesis, prediction, experimentation conclusion.

In evolution, the fish to man story, dinosaurs to cows, big bang, neandertal to human, dinosaur to bird - all of these theories and hundreds more like them go from hypothesis to conclusion and skip the prediction and experimentation part.

There was a time about a hundred years ago when they used to do the prediction and experimentation part, but since that didn't work out, they now don't bother. Today, they just leave those steps out and still manage to call is science, although it's actually philosophy.

Regarding evidence against evolution, it's more that there things which make you go hmmmmm. Like arguments brought forth by Intelligent Design movement and the hundreds of peices of evidence called 'anomalies'. If you want to look further into the anomalies, there is a book called Science Frontiers. You used to be able to search through the anomalies on their website, but the founder of the website decided to instead write a book and not let us peek at them for free. In any case, the anomalies are peices of evidence that don't fit with current scientific thought and the author has compiled the book from articles found in magazines like Scientific America or Nature. In fact, there are so many he didn't stop at one book - he wrote a 2nd. And then I think he died.

You can't disprove evolution, because you can't prove a negative.

But you can ask yourself if all makes sense, given the complexity we see, the lack of fossil evidence, the absense of use of the scientific method and why they continue to use the word 'science' all around evolution in spite of this, the hundreds anomalies that don't fit, the shift in current thought amongst scientists towards questioning evolutionary principles, etc.

Again, we can disprove neither creation or evolution, but we can take a skeptical approach and examine which theory fits better with what we DO observe.

[Isaiah 6:8]

LOL, it should have said "speciation" and not "evolution". I was in a rush and it was a slip of the hand, it should read properly now.

You did say "we have never seen them ever evolve from one species to another", which would be a rejection of speciation. For the record, either way, do you accept speciation?

I do not call speciation evolution. You see that then is where the word game goes. You accept speciation, (evolution) so why not the whole deal ( from dino's to birds). You see you are sticking on a word, evolution, and that is why I am saying you speak in word games. Yes I belive in speciation as that is an observed fact. I do not call it evolution as evolution implies changing from one species to an completely different species.

I don't think that is the whole story. Whoever disproves the theory of evolution would be next in line for a Nobel, not to mention fame and fortune along with a good chance of forever being immortalized by the scientific community of professionals and laymen alike; they'd join the ranks of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dalton, Watson-Crick, Faraday, and others. Not to mention it is in governments best interest to create environments where good science flourishes, as that translates into increased discovery of new inventions to exploit; you're just not going to get the best results possible working under a heavily flawed model. So I think there is more than enough reason for someone to blow the whistle on the evolutionary hoax. As a general rule, the bigger the conspiracy the harder it is to cover it up, and if evolution is a conspiracy then it's a big one.

I don't think its 100% considered. Its taken an idea and presented it so much that it is simply taken as a fact, and if you fight against that you are presented as crazy. For instance. People believe that you HAVE to have a credit card to rent a car. This is a myth taken as fact. I have had people argue with me over this over and over and yet I have rented multiple cars with out a credit card. You see people have been told a story so often, they simply accept it as true and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary. Tell me have you ever really looked at all the creation information, with an open mind, or have you done like I have with evolution, looked at it only to disprove the points?

You see I was taught, evolution in school growing up, its on TV all day long, in one way shape or form, its in cartoons etc. You see it has been so ingrained into our culture that to fight against it seems that you may be off the deep end or ignoring the facts.

I started looking at all the evidence as I was wondering if it fit into Genesis, yes, to see how it worked with the Bible, and when it did not I started taking a better closer look. I found the evidence did not fit, the idea's at even a basic level doe not work.

The question is, can you look at the evidence objectively?

I really don't know what you are talking about. Why would the Earth be close to or inside the Sun a million years ago because of the way the Sun gets its energy?

As the sun burns through its fuel it shrinks at a measurable rate. Using this rate, you can extrapolate the size of the sun. So even 1 Million years ago, the earth would be incinerate. there negating all possibility of life evolving on the planet.

I am really at a loss as to where you are coming from. I've obviously said some things in the past that pushed your buttons, but I honestly am drawing a blank on these conversations. I said from the very beginning with the Sun thing that I don't know what you're talking about. I need more than 'because the way the Sun burns it's fuel, a million years ago the Earth would be in the center of the Sun', to me that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I just cannot connect how fusion in the Sun would make it so that the Earth was near or inside the Sun a million years ago.

Sorry I did miss that I was not clear about that, I am sorry about that. However I have seen you state minimal evidence to ascertain something that we have never seen is possible. A lack of one gas on a moon or a planet I can not remember which. You stated that just because one gas was not found that it was evidence of silicon based lifeforms.

If I said a much stronger thing about evolution being wrong, you would tell me the evidence was too weak. Such the fact that it would only have taken Niagara falls 6,000 years to wear down to its current shape from water erosion was evidence of the earth being young. You would state that it was only evidence of the fall themselves being only 6000 years old. you see there are many options to why this is true however if I state that as evidence you would say it was not based on other possible explanations. So yes it is evidence but not a fact. You have shown you choose to belive what evidence you will and ignore other possibility.

I'm still curious to see the evidence against evolution, and why evolution isn't science. In a nutshell all I have is the assertion that it is faith based and overtly biased, vague notions of twisting and ignoring facts, there is no evidence of evolution, possibly that speciation is a lie (you have contradictory statements here, so I don't know what you believe), with some sun thing that eludes my comprehension. What are some of the things that evolutionists are ignoring and/or twisting? What are some of the biases that you see?

Many people have presented these facts over the forums. You have looked at them and rejected them. For instance, I have brought up where did sexual reproduction come from. You have stated you do not know. The odds against this happening and working perfectly are next to impossible, and yet you accept that evolution made it possible somehow.

I did not want to list a bunch of fact, however since I have time let me go over a few.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

source

Then there is this...

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm

Just to start. I ask you to really think of this logic, really look a the evidence weigh it and tell me if you can take it as science or faith.

[Isaiah 6:8]

As the sun burns through its fuel it shrinks at a measurable rate. Using this rate, you can extrapolate the size of the sun. So even 1 Million years ago, the earth would be incinerate. there negating all possibility of life evolving on the planet.

Uh, no that doesn't work out correctly. Perhaps if you thought the sun, or any star, produced energy from chemical reactions (say combining two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom to produce water + energy) that might be the case. However, stars use nuclear fusion which is a much more efficient process.

Actually the sun is shrinking at a measurable rate. As its nuclear fuel is slowly fused into other denser forms of matter. So yes it works. And yes it is and has been measured.

[artsylady]

Sam:

Sadly, you are misinformed about the nature of biological research. In many universities today scientific research in areas related to evolution is being done. This includes lab experiments, field studies, mathematical/computer modeling and so on.

As stated, in evolution, the fish to man story, dinosaurs to cows, big bang, neandertal to human, dinosaur to bird - all of these theories and hundreds more like them go from hypothesis to conclusion and skip the prediction and experimentation part.

Do you agree or disagree?

Out of the thousands of researchers in these areas, there are a handful who, for religious reasons, don't accept evolution. I suspect those few who do not accept evolution completely still accept it as science. I'd be interested in any current scientist within the biological community who does not accept research on evolution as science.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Just slightly over 800 scientists on this list. Last time I checked (about a year ago) there were just over 700. These scientists are 'skeptical' on evolutionary claim.

You never commented on the hundreds of anomalies.

[Guest]

.... Sadly, you are misinformed about the nature of biological research. In many universities today scientific research in areas related to evolution is being done. This includes lab experiments, field studies, mathematical/computer modeling and so on. Out of the thousands of researchers in these areas, there are a handful who, for religious reasons, don't accept evolution. I suspect those few who do not accept evolution completely still accept it as science. I'd be interested in any current scientist within the biological community who does not accept research on evolution as science....

Evolution

You Won't

Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you. 1 Samuel 12:24

See It Today

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

You Can't Change It Tomorrow

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

And Life Forms Are Decreasing In Number Even As We Write

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:21-22

So Just What Science Are You Thinking Of Dear Sam? Dinosaur Train?

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

Or The Science Of Mocking God's Intelligent?

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

And What Value Knowledge

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

If The Noise

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

Covers The Call

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. John 19:30

Of Your Creator To You

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

What Comfort Will These Fables Of Men

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Offer To You As You Kneel Before The LORD Your God Your Maker

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 14:11-12

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[artsylady]

In evolution, the fish to man story, dinosaurs to cows, big bang, neandertal to human, dinosaur to bird - all of these theories and hundreds more like them go from hypothesis to conclusion and skip the prediction and experimentation part.

Unfortunately for you this is not the case. Paleobiologists can accurately predict, based on evolutionary theory, where we should find transitional fossils and what they're characteristics are going to be. For a prime example of this I suggest looking up the discovery of Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil of fish to tetrapods. In actuality, the process isn't dino to bird story first then experimentation, rather it is more along the lines of looking at various lines of evidence (genetic, paleogeographic, fossil record, etc.), and from that forming models of what evolved into what. Once those models are on paper, these models predict certain things, and these predictions lead to experiments/studies, and help scientists analyze data to see if it fits with a given model.

Please point me to the experimentation part of the equation in any of the scenarios.

Creation Scientists can make predictions too. They can predict that if a global flood occurred, we should find fossils. We should find lots of fossils because lots of creatures were buried in sediment. Many creatures died who were not eaten by scavengers nor did they decay. They were buried (quickly) by sediment. And that's what we find.

As far as fossils go, both creation and evolution can make predictions on what we'd find.

But neither can do the experiment to test the theory.

One thing that you should be aware of is that the theory of evolution doesn't say cows came from dinosaurs, and Neanderthals didn't evolve into modern humans.

Sorry, it was dinosaurs to whales, wasn't it? Whales to cows? I forget how the story goes. I know the story doesn't say Neanderthals evolved to humans. They were both related right? Anyway, looks like evolutionists have caught up with what creation scientists have been saying all along. That Neanderthals were basically human and interbred with human.

Quote

Regarding evidence against evolution, it's more that there things which make you go hmmmmm. Like arguments brought forth by Intelligent Design movement and the hundreds of peices of evidence called 'anomalies'. If you want to look further into the anomalies, there is a book called Science Frontiers. You used to be able to search through the anomalies on their website, but the founder of the website decided to instead write a book and not let us peek at them for free. In any case, the anomalies are peices of evidence that don't fit with current scientific thought and the author has compiled the book from articles found in magazines like Scientific America or Nature. In fact, there are so many he didn't stop at one book - he wrote a 2nd. And then I think he died.

Intelligent Design has been utterly destroyed, I suggest looking up the Dover Trial. Dr. Behe, the guy who coined Irreducible Complexity and wrote Darwin's Black Box, said in court under oath that for ID to be science the definition of science has to expand to allow things like astrology. Plus his famous IC examples of the bacterial flagellum and the immune system were knocked down by scientists and years of scientific research in the form of peer-reviewed papers and textbooks.

First off, I don't know how you can say it has been 'utterly destroyed' when there many scientists out there (and the list is growing) who do see this as a problem for evolution.

As far as anomalies, there are always going to be anomalies in science, such is the nature of science; there is no scientific theory that doesn't have anomalies. But honestly, I've seen those lists of hundreds of points that refute evolution and such, it's all basically half-truths, misapplications, and down right falsehoods. If you have a specific example you'd like to share or reference I'll look at it, but I wouldn't hold my breath though.

You've read Science Frontiers? Can you give me an example of a scientific anomalie that you considered a half truth? Why are they publishing these in science magazines?

You can't disprove evolution, because you can't prove a negative.

But you can ask yourself if all makes sense, given the complexity we see, the lack of fossil evidence, the absense of use of the scientific method and why they continue to use the word 'science' all around evolution in spite of this, the hundreds anomalies that don't fit, the shift in current thought amongst scientists towards questioning evolutionary principles, etc.

Again, we can disprove neither creation or evolution, but we can take a skeptical approach and examine which theory fits better with what we DO observe.

You can certainly disprove evolution, it's a positive claim, at least theoretically as it is falsifiable. It's just that evolution has yet to be falsified, and the evidence has supported it quite well. The fossil evidence is good too, and the scientific method is continually used in evolutionary research. Evolution has an incredible acceptance rate among scientists, about 95% in total accept it, with about 99.98% of those who have relevant expertise accept it. 800 scientists (assuming the list is accurate) is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists out there, I suggest you look up "project Steve". The more you know, the more likely you are to accept evolution.

I agree that should look at what the evidence says, and the evidence points squarely at evolution.

You make a lot of blanket statements trying to convince me but these kinds of statements don't really convince me of anything but the fact that you would probably not be willing to look at the Creation model with an open mind. Am I correct?

I am curious. What peice of evidence has you the most convinced?

Do you realize Creation Scientists also study fossils and use them as evidence?

[nebula]

Hey, D-9,

In everything you've said, I still haven't seen you address the OP.

Would you mind doing so, please?

Thanks!

I have argued long and hard with people that belive in evolution. Many say that it is science fact. Just as it is a fact that one plus one equals two. On the flip side I have seen people that are creationists, also state the same thing that creation is science fact.

I am going to go out on a limb here and state that both are not science fact but based on faith and emotion.

I will say that it is fare more likely to have a creationist admit this over an evolutionist. You see creationists do have faith in a god of some sort that created everything. This is obviously a statement of faith.

Evolutionists, by and in large state the opposite. That chance and the laws of science and physics created everything. Some I have seen try to only debate biological evolution and not cosmological, and that is fine. the debate ranges all over the place and yet it does not matter what branch you are talking about the principle is the same.

There are many facts, and yet no proof, no hard evidence exists for either view point. Let me explain.

In June of 1991 Jaycee Lee Dugard was kidnapped on the way to her school bus stop. The police started the investigation but choose not to focus one facts of the case and choose instead to follower there own idea's of who kidnapped her. They instead of finding the real kidnapper, instead focused on trying to prove that her stepfather was the culprit. They believed he had killed her and buried her, and yet they really did not look at all the evidence, nor expand there search outside of the city as they assumed that they had their facts straight.

As it turns out, they had missed the truth. You see they had put there theory first and interpreted the facts through the lens of there own ideas. 18 years later, Jaycee was found alive, being the prisoner of a sexual predator for 18 years and having two children with him.

This all could have been avoided if they had stopped to develop there theory from the facts, not trying to fit the facts to there theory.

That sums up what I have seen. I have yet to see any facts presented from any side of the debate that was not twisted to fit the theory. You see science does not allow for personal theories. When it comes down to it, you must take what the facts state, not what you want them to.

So far I have yet to see a single fact presented by any party that is not presented without bias. They all tell you the facts, then tell you what it means, from there own point of view.

So if there is no science fact. If the facts are twisted and explained to fit the theory, not forming the theory, as it should be, then it by definition can not be science. If not science then what do you have? Mere belief, or faith in what you are stating is right.

So do I believe in science? Yes. I use a computer don't I? I enjoy my cellphone, my modern medicines cars and planes and other such products of science. As for how we got here, and how the plants and animals came to be the way they came, well I admittedly have a belief that God created everything as he spoke in Genesis. The more I learn about the universe, about the planet, about the wild places and deep oceans, the more it enforces my belief that God made all this beauty. However, I will not say my belief is scientific. I just see that the facts can fit my belief. I am not stating that they prove it.

On the flip side I look at evolution, and I find that there is always a twist to how it is presented, and how it is presented as science fact, when in reality there is no proof that it is fact. This makes be think that people have a belief system all there own, and yes, the facts seems to support there beliefs as well. But again it is just that. Belief.