Is evolution or creation science?

[Exaeus]

You've been a member here for 4 days and you already know that Isaiah is frustrated, angry and bitter? That is amazing. Ad hominem much?

Er...

Isaiah, to be honest you give the impression of...

Reading comprehension much?

[Isaiah 6:8]

Isaiah, to be honest you give the impression of a very frustrated, angry individual trying to drag science down to the level of religion so you can feel better about your beliefs.

Do you think it's possible to phrase your arguments in a more specific manner so that a useful reply can be made to them, or is your aim here simply to vent your bitterness?

Hmm personal unprovoked attackes are against the tos. I was summing up my leanghty OP and my many leanghty replies. Did you read the whole thread? Do you know me,my background and what I know about science?

You have no grounds to speak if not. As i have laid out my case before and you have not takenen the time to read what I have actually said before. Do not make subjects personal that is part of the rules.

You seem to do this here a lot are you here to only cause strife?

[Isaiah 6:8]

I'll say for me that the Holy Bible is the Authority - the measurement of all truth. I suspect that you'll get the same answer from most real Christians. God's Word gives a Creation account, and there you have the TRUTH.

I think your statement clearly shows that creationism is faith based. On the other hand, science is based on logic. Thus, the opening question is neatly answered.

I miss read that. Science is logic however my op was about evolution which uses logic to a point and fills in the gaps with faith.

[Exaeus]

Hmm personal unprovoked attackes are against the tos.

Not a personal attack, simply an observation of your language, choice of words, and the style of argument you're using. I don't honestly believe that crosses the line and counts as a personal attack when some moderators on this forum (whom I assume am very well-versed with the forum rules, much more so than I), have shown that it's perfectly acceptable to label someone else's posts as "pure ignorance".

I was summing up my leanghty OP and my many leanghty replies. Did you read the whole thread? Do you know me,my background and what I know about science?

You have no grounds to speak if not. As i have laid out my case before and you have not takenen the time to read what I have actually said before. Do not make subjects personal that is part of the rules.

Well, what I can know from your background is only what you've publicly displayed, such as in this thread. In reply to that answer I'm afraid I'll have to say "not very much indeed". You have consistently misrepresented the evidence that the modern evolutionary synthesis is based on. You argue about ERVs all while ignoring the fact that your argument not only fails to adequately address the data, it does not address the data at all. Your argument of science being a belief rests attacking scientists and researchers as emotional and belief-prone, which unfortunately is actually quite a common occurrence, instead of what is actually accepted as science, which is based on nothing but evidence and data. The scientific method is the most basic lesson to every student of science, but it appears that you don't understand even that.

You haven't posted much beyond the first few pages, but step back in near the end with a few and then conclude something about the "magic of time" or some such. As you can see, I am basing my impressions not on personal attacks, but what you've publicly wrote and posted.

You seem to do this here a lot are you here to only cause strife?

I see that questioning other people's motives does not constitute as a violation of the TOS. In that case: you seem to be quite hostile and threatening when discussions aren't going in favor of Christians, what's your agenda here?

[Isaiah 6:8]

Not a personal attack, simply an observation of your language, choice of words, and the style of argument you're using. I don't honestly believe that crosses the line and counts as a personal attack when some moderators on this forum (whom I assume am very well-versed with the forum rules, much more so than I), have shown that it's perfectly acceptable to label someone else's posts as "pure ignorance".

I admit I missed the Appears part. As for the ignorance you stated as fact something that is only true to a person who is ignorant of the differances in physical appearance of Asian people. It was not a attack but a statement of fact.

Well, what I can know from your background is only what you've publicly displayed, such as in this thread In reply to that answer I'll have to say "not very much indeed"

Well you would need to read more than one thread to get an full picture,otherwise you will have no real clue.

You have consistently misrepresented the evidence that the modern evolutionary synthesis is based on

Really? Where? I even retracted my statement on the sun when show it was based off of old data.

You argue about ERVs all while ignoring the fact that your argument not only fails to adequately address the data, it does not address the data at all.

Um any do people keep claiming that I am arguing ERVs when all I have said about them is that the are an example of one set of data with two vewpoints.I have not once argued about them in this thread.

Your argument of science being a belief rests attacking scientists and researchers as emotional and belief-prone, which unfortunately is actually quite a common occurrence, instead of what is actually accepted as science, which is based on nothing but evidence and data.

Only when it comes to evolution and other "origin "fields of study.

The scientific method is the most basic lesson to every student of science, but it appears that you don't understand even that.

It would seem you jump to conclusions quickly without evidance.I know it well and see evolution as failing to follow it.

Proof.

You haven't posted much beyond the first few pages, but step back in near the end with a few and then conclude something about the "magic of time" or some such. As you can see, I am basing my impressions not on personal attacks, but what you've publicly wrote and posted.

Yes but you never did a point by point on what I posted but summed up your opinion of me only last statement an an argument that I did not make,and assumed I was ignorant of the scientific method. Coming to the conclusion that I was simply angry and non logical.

Why not do a point by point breakdown of what I have said notmy summation or a statement taken out of context.

I see that questioning other people's motives does not constitute as a violation of the TOS. In that case: you seem to be quite hostile and threatening when discussions aren't going in favor of Christians, what's your agenda here?

Ahhh your right I should not have questioned your motives in public. However as a mod if I suspect trouble brewing I need to ask. However you have assumed much in my motives and responses. The discussions becomi g personal are the only ones where I "threaten" or rather remind people of the tos. You have perceived this thread as hostile however that is not the case.

[Exaeus]

I admit I missed the Appears part. As for the ignorance you stated as fact something that is only true to a person who is ignorant of the differances in physical appearance of Asian people. It was not a attack but a statement of fact.

Well, then that leaves us wondering what criteria do you use to determine when it is appropriate to put forward these "statements of fact", because you obviously considered it unnecessary when it was a Christian claiming that European "blue-eyed, blond-haired" people would "fit in" with German Nazis.

Um any do people keep claiming that I am arguing ERVs when all I have said about them is that the are an example of one set of data with two vewpoints.I have not once argued about them in this thread.

Except that one of those viewpoints does not even attempt to explain the data! Again, you continue to ignore this.

Creationism in general as argued by theists is plagued with the same problem. Whatever cannot be explained by theists are either misrepresented or dismissed. While it is theoretically possible to come up with a "theory" of creationism that does address all the data we have (I put theory in quotes because I'm not sure if it'd be falsifiable), it's not a theory that theists are generally willing to accept because they've yet to find a way to adequately square it with the Bible.

Only when it comes to evolution and other "origin "fields of study.

Isaiah, there is no difference in the scientific process between evolutionary biology and any other field.

You can focus all your efforts on sieging evolutionary biology if you want, but assuming that evolution is the last and only bastion of science holding out against creationism is a common mistake made by many theists. Creationism is falsified by virtually every branch of science out there, including but not limited to cosmology, nuclear and quantum physics, physical chemistry, biochemistry, molecular genetics, phylogenetics, anthrolopogy, paleontology, geology, et cetera et cetera et cetera. Even if your story is true, and it is proven that there's a worldwide conspiracy by evolutionary biologists in cahoots to discredit creationism... guess what? Creationism would still be dead wrong.

Yes but you never did a point by point on what I posted but summed up your opinion of me only last statement an an argument that I did not make,and assumed I was ignorant of the scientific method. Coming to the conclusion that I was simply angry and non logical.

Why not do a point by point breakdown of what I have said notmy summation or a statement taken out of context.

Most of your points have already been debunked by other posters while you raggedly repeated yourself with already-discredited arguments. The one that wasn't was your "magic of time" remark, which was not only too general to understand, much less break down, but also couldn't possibly be taken out of context because as far as I could tell it had no context whatsoever. Hence my reply asking if you could be more specific.

However you have assumed much in my motives and responses. The discussions becomi g personal are the only ones where I "threaten" or rather remind people of the tos. You have perceived this thread as hostile however that is not the case.

You mean pretty much the same way you phrased your loaded question to imply that I "did this here a lot" (whatever "this" may mean), and that I'm here to cause strife? Two people can play that game. However, I'd rather not if I don't have to, to be honest.

Ahhh your right I should not have questioned your motives in public.

Well, if we're in agreement on that, then there's no harm done.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Well, then that leaves us wondering what criteria do you use to determine when it is appropriate to put forward these "statements of fact", because you obviously considered it unnecessary when it was a Christian claiming that European "blue-eyed, blond-haired" people would "fit in" with German Nazis.

Because if you understand WWII history and the pseudo Science that Hitler engaged in, if you said the right things and were blond haired and blue eyed you would be able to blend right in with Hitler's crazy scheme of things. There were blond haired blue eyed Jews that did just that to escape the gas chambers, and were able to do so because they fit the "Scientific" Aryan race measurements. You see that is a statement of fact, as it happened. Stating that Japanese and Chinese are indistinguishable is only true when a person who has no real experiences with them to tell them apart, See U.F.'s Thread in your defense.

Also trying to pit people against each other is a poor way to debate.

Except that one of those viewpoints does not even attempt to explain the data! Again, you continue to ignore this.

Um, actually it does.

http://creation.com/...us-retroviruses

and again you are trying to muddy the waters of the point of this thread. There are two viewpoints that explain the data. That is my only point. What set of data you prefer, is up to you to choose. Obviously you disregard the creationist explanation, and accept the evolutionist one, as that already gels with your worldview that there is no God. By the way I started this thread to debate a Theist who is an evolutionist. Not really to debate atheists, as you seem to have assumed, not that I mind, but its really not about atheism at all this one.

Creationism in general as argued by theists is plagued with the same problem. Whatever cannot be explained by theists are either misrepresented or dismissed. While it is theoretically possible to come up with a "theory" of creationism that does address all the data we have (I put theory in quotes because I'm not sure if it'd be falsifiable), it's not a theory that theists are generally willing to accept because they've yet to find a way to adequately square it with the Bible.

I have never said that Creationist have not done this before. I have said that in my opening statement, I have repeated this over and over, and even in my other two threads on the same lines. Creationism is not strict science. Your preaching to the choir on this point. However you refuse like others to acknowledge that Evolutionist have done and will do the same thing anytime the data does not fit, they ignore it, or throw it out, or simply say that "Well it works this way over millions of years" even though there is no such evidence to prove that.

You can focus all your efforts on sieging evolutionary biology if you want, but assuming that evolution is the last and only bastion of science holding out against creationism is a common mistake made by many theists. Creationism is falsified by virtually every branch of science out there, including but not limited to cosmology, nuclear and quantum physics, physical chemistry, biochemistry, molecular genetics, phylogenetics, anthrolopogy, paleontology, geology, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

First off, I am not focusing only on evolutionary biology. I am speaking of it, as if you really read the thread, not just cherry picked as it seems you have, that it was agreed upon that we would focus on that part of it, per D-9 the evolutionist. I was respecting his viewpoint on that, and staying to that. As for the rest of the points you make, I'll address those in another thread if you wish but yet you keep making claims with out providing evidence, or better yet facts to back them up.

Even if your story is true, and it is proven that there's a worldwide conspiracy by evolutionary biologists in cahoots to discredit creationism... guess what? Creationism would still be dead wrong.

That is an emotional response not based in logic if I have ever seen one. Think about it , if it was proven that evolution was a conspiracy, trying to disprove one thing, that would make evolution wrong and creationism right. What you said here makes no sense logically. But it proves again my point of this thread, science is not to be emotionally driven.

Most of your points have already been debunked by other posters while you raggedly repeated yourself with already-discredited arguments.

Actually no they were not. One was based on old data, and I admitted that. The rest I was not arguing about the data, but that the data was interpreted two different ways, and or there are points that are ignored. Also Interesting you did not remark on me not knowing the scientific method. You refuse to give me any credit for knowing anything, I have admitted to using old data, however why can you not admit I may know something?

The one that wasn't was your "magic of time" remark, which was not only too general to understand, much less break down, but also couldn't possibly be taken out of context because as far as I could tell it had no context whatsoever. Hence my reply asking if you could be more specific.

Again I was reiterating something that I and others have said repeatedly. Evolutionists use "Time" as a magic wand. If you don't know how something happens, or have no proof, you just say it happened over millions or more years and all of a sudden everything works.

For instance Sexual reproduction I have yet had anyone tell me how that works. What are the odds of a creature developing as a male and female that work perfectly to procreate at the same time? I hear some about cell splitting and such but yet there is no answer to this, and yet it just happened, "Over time" You see a lot of things in evolution "Just happen" "Over Time" I see it on tv all the time, I read about it, and I was taught that in school as it all just happened over time with no real reasoning behind it.

you mean pretty much the same way you phrased your loaded question to imply that I "did this here a lot" (whatever "this" may mean), and that I'm here to cause strife? Two people can play that game. However, I'd rather not if I don't have to, to be honest.

That was not a loaded question, it was a direct question. Again I apologize I should have emailed you that question as I usually do, that was a lack of judgement on my part. However if a thread starts getting out of hand I will warn.

Me telling you not to make a thread personal was a warning. Yes you have done that, and made personal remarks but not attacks, I was wrong on that. However this thread was not about me but about a subject of debate. You have come in and changed it. You have made this thread about me, and that is either because you are unwilling or unable to bring honest debate to the thread. Simply stating that you are right and I am wrong is about the worst possible argument you can bring. You say I am wrong and you say you need not reply as others have, and yet you don't even quote what the others said. You just try to make me look bad as a person, and honestly as ignorant, and dumb, with you stating that I don't know the basics of science. This sort of behavior is against the TOS, and will be warned about and then stopped.

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

I will admit I was a bit tired the other night and should have been more clear about what you did that was in violation of said rules. In this thread you made the thread about my attitude in the thread, not the subject matter.

For the record, I will agree with my last post, I was a little frustrated as my words were taken out of context and twisted to say what I did not say, 2 times before, and then I was told that I was wrong about something that I did not say. There fore I made bold and in big the word "IF" because I was putting forth a hypothetical question and even answered it in the way a creationist and an evolutionist would respond to the same data, and yet everyone seems to think that I stated that as fact, and then went on to say how wrong I was, and then repeat exactly what I said in the first place. You can understand why I would be a bit frustrated with people taking what I said and arguing with me on something that I agree with them on.

Oh and to date not one of them has replied to that, or admits that they read it wrong and completely missed my point.

Well, if we're in agreement on that, then there's no harm done.

Again on that I apologize it is my job to see where people are coming from, I should have done it via email, again I am sorry, I was not really thinking through what I was typing, I really should avoid deep convos when I am dealing with insomnia.

[Exaeus]

Because if you understand WWII history and the pseudo Science that Hitler engaged in, if you said the right things and were blond haired and blue eyed you would be able to blend right in with Hitler's crazy scheme of things. There were blond haired blue eyed Jews that did just that to escape the gas chambers, and were able to do so because they fit the "Scientific" Aryan race measurements. You see that is a statement of fact, as it happened. Stating that Japanese and Chinese are indistinguishable is only true when a person who has no real experiences with them to tell them apart, See U.F.'s Thread in your defense.

Isaiah, I'm not sure that being accepted by Nazi Germany as a traitor from other nations during wartime is the best definition of "blending in", but if that's what we're going with, the Empire of Japan had her fair share of Chinese traitors during WWII. As the Japanese invasion spread across Asia under the propaganda cover of the "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", many more first-generation Chinese migrants in other Asian countries flocked to support Japan as well. If we are to accept your logic, the Chinese apparently "blend in" with the Japanese just as well as blond-haired, blue-eyed people "blended right in" with the Nazis.

Also trying to pit people against each other is a poor way to debate.

I was trying to point out your set of conflicting criteria more than trying to pit you against another poster. Either way, it might have been quite impossible for me to do so if you didn't hold to such arbitrary standards of what consists of "pure ignorance" and what does not. Food for thought.

Um, actually it does.

http://creation.com/...us-retroviruses

The lesson to be derived by ERVs was not because they were non-functional genetic code; it is because those identical or highly-similar strings can be found in other organisms that allows us inspect those sequences and at which stage of the evolution tree were they inserted into the genome, and from the data deduce common descent. By focusing on arguing that "junk DNA is not junk" while completely failing to mention the results of phylogenetic analysis, that linked article is nothing but yet another classic example of a creationist argument that not only misrepresents what science is saying, but completely ignores it altogether.

and again you are trying to muddy the waters of the point of this thread. There are two viewpoints that explain the data. That is my only point.

And, as I've repeatedly explained (and again above), my point was that one of them does not even acknowledge that the data exists, much less explain them.

That is an emotional response not based in logic if I have ever seen one. Think about it , if it was proven that evolution was a conspiracy, trying to disprove one thing, that would make evolution wrong and creationism right. What you said here makes no sense logically. But it proves again my point of this thread, science is not to be emotionally driven.

Because, as I've explained, creationism as described by the Bible is discredited by mountains of evidence from virtually every field of science. Even if theists managed to score a victory against evolutionary biology, there's still a whole bunch of hurdles that creationism needs to clear.

You also assume that there can only be two possible explanations for life on Earth, evolution and creationism. Hence one of them must be right if the other is wrong. This is quite an illogical assumption, for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Also Interesting you did not remark on me not knowing the scientific method. You refuse to give me any credit for knowing anything, I have admitted to using old data, however why can you not admit I may know something?

Actually, I'm taking your word for it and seeing what you come up with, for now. If you really are literate about science and the scientific method, it's usually fairly obvious from the arguments you make. Of course, the same holds true for the opposite.

Again I was reiterating something that I and others have said repeatedly. Evolutionists use "Time" as a magic wand. If you don't know how something happens, or have no proof, you just say it happened over millions or more years and all of a sudden everything works.

Isaiah, I assume you know that evolution really did happen over hundreds of millions of years, because that's how long ago that the earliest fossils have been dated to. "Invoking time" is not a magic wand, it's what the data tells us. In all seriousness, what do you expect scientists to say? That we've only been around for about 7 thousand years or so, when that flies against the face of all evidence?

For instance Sexual reproduction I have yet had anyone tell me how that works. What are the odds of a creature developing as a male and female that work perfectly to procreate at the same time? I hear some about cell splitting and such but yet there is no answer to this, and yet it just happened, "Over time" You see a lot of things in evolution "Just happen" "Over Time" I see it on tv all the time, I read about it, and I was taught that in school as it all just happened over time with no real reasoning behind it.

Unfortunately the evolution of sexual reproduction is pretty much still at the hypothesis stage, last I checked. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

However, the thing to keep in mind is that the evolution of sexual reproduction is not impossible. We can propose viable pathways via which it happened, except that we do not know which one is correct due to lack of data. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose that we have a murderer who was proven guilty by DNA evidence, eyewitnesses, and camera footage. What we do not know, however, was whether he entered the victim's house through the door or window. Do you throw out the entire case simply because of that? No, you don't. That's being silly.

Again on that I apologize it is my job to see where people are coming from, I should have done it via email, again I am sorry, I was not really thinking through what I was typing, I really should avoid deep convos when I am dealing with insomnia.

Again as I've said, no harm done.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Isaiah, I'm not sure that being accepted by Nazi Germany as a traitor from other nations during wartime is the best definition of "blending in", but if that's what we're going with, the Empire of Japan had her fair share of Chinese traitors during WWII. As the Japanese invasion spread across Asia under the propaganda cover of the "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", many more first-generation Chinese migrants in other Asian countries flocked to support Japan as well. If we are to accept your logic, the Chinese apparently "blend in" with the Japanese just as well as blond-haired, blue-eyed people "blended right in" with the Nazis.

Apples and Oranges. The Japanese did not have a "Racial Purity Science" that they used. The Nazis did however and it worked against them. What I stated did indeed happen. It was a different situation in China. Matter of fact one of the only hero's of the rape of Dan king was a German Nazi diplomat. Also not everyone who "Blended in" was a traitor, they did the bare minimum they needed to survive and then worked to help others escape. So no this is not about traitors, the Japanese were not gassing thousands of Chinese people in an attempt to make a master race. This argument does not hold.

I was trying to point out your set of conflicting criteria more than trying to pit you against another poster. Either way, it might have been quite impossible for me to do so if you didn't hold to such arbitrary standards of what consists of "pure ignorance" and what does not. Food for thought.

Nope, pure ignorance is one of never really facing a situation before, and having no knowledge of how to handle it.

The lesson to be derived by ERVs was not because they were non-functional genetic code; it is because those identical or highly-similar strings can be found in other organisms that allows us inspect those sequences and at which stage of the evolution tree were they inserted into the genome, and from the data deduce common descent. By focusing on arguing that "junk DNA is not junk" while completely failing to mention the results of phylogenetic analysis, that linked article is nothing but yet another classic example of a creationist argument that not only misrepresents what science is saying, but completely ignores it altogether.

Again, it is a different viewpoint on the same evidence. You do not belive it address the problem, they belive it does, its a "he said she said" battle and yet no one on either side is willing to really look into the other side and say "Hmm they may be right"

And, as I've repeatedly explained (and again above), my point was that one of them does not even acknowledge that the data exists, much less explain them.

Actually the agree there is data, but they do not belive that the data shows what you say it shows. Its like this picture.

do you see an old lady or a young lady? Well its one set of data that can be interpreted two ways. They acknowledge what evolutionists are speaking of and then say they disagree with the conclusion they came to. No one wants to stop to try to see if it is something from other side. BOTH are party to this.

Because, as I've explained, creationism as described by the Bible is discredited by mountains of evidence from virtually every field of science. Even if theists managed to score a victory against evolutionary biology, there's still a whole bunch of hurdles that creationism needs to clear.

Yet I have not seen any. Sure I have seen mountains of facts, but they are all filtered through a world view, and are all tainted ether by creationism or evolution. Nothing objective have I seen that stands alone and proclaims one way or the other. All I see is a pile of old/young women paintings and not a single one of just one or the other.

You also assume that there can only be two possible explanations for life on Earth, evolution and creationism. Hence one of them must be right if the other is wrong. This is quite an illogical assumption, for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Well yes and no however this is getting off topic but I shall simplify. Either life evolved, or was created by some being somewhere. That could be the God of the Bible or any other god from other religions, or aliens. You see yes I stand by biblical creation of course, however I think its still evolution or creation at the core.

Actually, I'm taking your word for it and seeing what you come up with, for now. If you really are literate about science and the scientific method, it's usually fairly obvious from the arguments you make. Of course, the same holds true for the opposite.

Did you even read my thread about the scientific method? I linked to it and I am to tired to do so again. Yes I do not think that either evolution or creation line up in it as they are not objective.

Isaiah, I assume you know that evolution really did happen over hundreds of millions of years, because that's how long ago that the earliest fossils have been dated to. "Invoking time" is not a magic wand, it's what the data tells us. In all seriousness, what do you expect scientists to say? That we've only been around for about 7 thousand years or so, when that flies against the face of all evidence?

yes I understand that. However again I keep seeing people say , well we don't know how it happens, but it did happen somehow over millions of years of mutations. I challenge you to watch any program on the discovery channel or the like about evolution, and notice when they say words like, "We think, We speculate, it must have or" etc followed by some sort of "it happened over millions of years"

again much speculation, little science.

Unfortunately the evolution of sexual reproduction is pretty much still at the hypothesis stage, last I checked. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

However, the thing to keep in mind is that the evolution of sexual reproduction is not impossible. We can propose viable pathways via which it happened, except that we do not know which one is correct due to lack of data. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose that we have a murderer who was proven guilty by DNA evidence, eyewitnesses, and camera footage. What we do not know, however, was whether he entered the victim's house through the door or window. Do you throw out the entire case simply because of that? No, you don't. That's being silly.

Actually this is a huge hole in evolution. Tell me how is it possible, for working reproductive organs to simultaneously sprout in equal but opposite fashion and then work perfectly to continue the species. You see the whole idea of that fly's in the face of "Millions of years" It can not happen, there are no real explanations of this. Not one. Just guesses. No good answers and yet, we are taught that it did some how happen, over time, because if not none of us would be here. This does not make any logical sense to me.

This is an example of the magic of time. We have no proof, but we have lots of time and we have evidence that something happened but we don't know what, we just assume it had to happen over time as we have no evidence to the contrary.

Also how to you test such a thing according to the scientific method? This is one you can likely run odds on, but I don't do the big math things, so I'll let that one be!

[Isaiah 6:8]

<<Off topic: is there any change that the powers that be here could allow one to post 2 posts in a row without waiting for a given length of time? Just a thought...>>

I think it may be a browser issue. I have had the opposite problem. Double posting.

The good news: we agree 50%! We both seem to agree that creationism is based on faith.

Yes, however, I belive that the facts support it, however I do not see the facts as proving it to be so. As in the scientific method theories can be disproved rather then proved.

The bad news (?): we disagree on the nature of evolution. I see the theory of evolution as a subset of biology which I see as a subset of science. I'm not sure what "gaps" you are referring to here, but there are lots of things that we don't know in science in general, and evolution in particular.

so as not to reinvent the wheel, the above mentioned sexual reproduction is one of the gaps, that I have a big problem with because knowing how hard for it to be for humans to reproduce if something is just slightly off (My wife and I remain childless after 8 years) I cannot fathom it happening by chance and slowly over time.

It's what we don't know that's in many ways the most interesting part. At least, that's my point of view.

I will agree with that about all science, this is why I would as a child read encyclopedias for fun.

What I don't see is that there's any sort of religious faith employed in speculating about those areas where data and/or theory are lacking.

Well I was not exactly clear about the term faith, I did not mean it in a religious context. More of a "Faith that it works" You can have faith in a person with out it being religious, and you can have faith that an idea will work, however this is not religious, but again its a feeling none the less. I see people lead by there emotions all the time.

At a personal level, of course, one can use any criteria they want, or none at all really, to speculate about things, but within the context of science, one needs to offer ideas such that they are at minimal testable in principle.

I will agree with you on this. I have seen both creationists and evolutionists do this. I have called both on it at times. Again as I have posted before, here is my take in a nutshell from another thread. I edited the wording as in the original thread someone pointed out a weakness in my wording so I attended to it.

As you can see you can have theory's that are fact until proven false,and many such as gravity are often proven true but there are some changes in the how. Also, as I highlighted a theory cannot be proven. You can disprove a theory but you cannot prove one. So neither evolution or creation can be proven. They both have to be disproved. This is not done easily. Also neither of the two is a full or true theory. From all the data I have seen in my whole life presented to me by eitheran evolutionist, or even a creationist both make the errors of...

the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another

and

ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis.

Thus the question that states "How did we get here" is turned into "How did we get here with/without outside intervention" outside intervention is either ruled out completely or is the center of the whole deal. Either way we do not get untainted results. I have been guilty of this. Therefore. Since neither is based on science since both are tainted by expected results, we are left with faith in either of the two. Now you can debate what the evidence means but I have yet to see any true objective debate on what any given piece of evidence means, as both sides have an agenda. Since none of the data we have, is imperial, beyond subjective interpretation we are left with faith and logic. Logic is not be pure science as it can be subjective. However I belive that its the best thing we have in this case, as we have no hard evidence.