Replies

Hard science? Evolution is not based on hard science but faith. Life forming from lifeless chemicals? A force that has not been proven changing animals from one species to another? It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in ID. No, I am not an IDer or an evo person. I believe that no one knows what really happened or why. Until they get some hard proof, real hard proof, not conjecture, I will hold off my judgement on both.

They are both without proof.

Hard science? Evolution is not based on hard science but faith. Life forming from lifeless chemicals?

That is on the bleeding edge of science, granted...

A force that has not been proven changing animals from one species to another?

You don't even accept speciation??? Heck, even AiG admits that speciation happens! It's just that, to save their souls they redefine the insurmountable barrier to be some ill-defined "increase in information".

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in ID. ... They are both without proof.

Proof is for distillers & mathematicians. The best that any scientist can do is build up a big pile of circumstantial evidence.

Evolution is not based on hard science but faith.

So many creationists assert this, just before demonstrating that they don't understand what evolution is at all.

Life forming from lifeless chemicals?

And you don't disappoint. Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding "life forming from lifeless chemicals". Objecting to evolution on this basis only demonstrates that you don't understand the scope of evolution.

A force that has not been proven changing animals from one species to another?

You mean mutations and natural selection haven't been observed? That will come as a real shock to the hundreds if not thousands of biologists who have observed just that.

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in ID.

How would you know? You've already demonstrated that you don't actually understand evolution by first lumping it with abiogenesis, which evolution does not address, and then claiming that the driving force behind evolution has not been observed when it very well has.

No, I am not an IDer or an evo person.

Why is it that so many people come in, spout bad arguments against evolution, demonstrate that they don't have a clue about what evolution is or what evidence exists for it, and then claim that they're not on the side of ID/creationism when they use the exact same arguments that ID/creationism pushers use? I've never seen someone come into a discussion and totally misrepresent ID (though that's hard to do because even ID pushers can't agree on exactly what it means) or Biblical creationism and then claim that they aren't trying to advocate evolution.

I believe that no one knows what really happened or why.

Apparently, but that seems to be because you've not actually done any research.

Until they get some hard proof, real hard proof, not conjecture, I will hold off my judgement on both.

Theories in science are never proven. You're holding evolution to a standard to which nothing in science is ever held.