[narby]

The thing that really bothers me about the creationist bunch is that their purpose seems to be to disprove evolution, rather than develop affirmative evidence of something else.

I suppose that by definition faith will never have evidence to support it.

Too bad. I see this in the end hurting people of faith, not helping.

[Varda]

"The thing that really bothers me about the creationist bunch is that their purpose seems to be to disprove evolution, rather than develop affirmative evidence of something else.

Too bad. I see this in the end hurting people of faith, not helping."

I agree, there is nothing in science that can be against God. Truth cannot contradict truth.

[gore3000]

The thing that really bothers me about the creationist bunch is that their purpose seems to be to disprove evolution,

Actually there is nothing to disprove. There is no proof of evolution. Everyday we see species reproducing themselves with progeny of the same kind. Not once has anyone seen an organism reproduce a different species, not once. That is why the evolutionists always engage in rhetorical arguments instead of just laying out the facts as a real science would do.

[Buggman]

The thing that really bothers me about the creationist bunch is that their purpose seems to be to disprove evolution, rather than develop affirmative evidence of something else.

That's not entirely true, and I can see by your statement that you have not read very much on the ID side of the debate. However, it is true that much of the literature on the ID side is based on proving the inadequacies of naturalistic evolution to explain the world as we observe it. One has to first demonstrate the prevailing theory's inadequacies before your audience is willing to look at alternatives.

And frankly, there's quite a few holes in evolution that should be pointed out to students--or are you for teaching only half the truth?

Yours in Truth,