“Put your pants back on, I admitted no such thing.”?
What the...???
“So.... could you be reasoned out of your belief in God?”
No, I couldn’t. You are with your reply, again equating my belief in God with your belief in evolution. They are different things yet similar. You claim that evolution is true based on conclusive, physical evidence, I’m sure. If that is the case, your claim is incorrect. There is no conclusive evidence for evolution from one species to another. There is also no photographic or scientific evidence of God as such, so my belief in God comes from observation of the world around me and the testimony of early believers. You may not believe that your trust in evolution could be categorized as ‘faith’ or ‘religion’, but just because you don’t believe it does not make it an incorrect analysis.
Evolutionists believe, not because they see (since there is nothing to see). They believe out of an abundance of misinformation given by misguided “scientists” who have passed beliefs and the equivalant of old-wives tales along for a couple of generations now. Belief in Biblical Creation has stood the test of time and scientists have been unable to disqualify the validity of the Genesis account.
(No pants were removed in the posting of this reply)
If you were given sufficient scientific evidence to invalidate Genesis, would you change your mind and agree that it was mythical?
I don’t believe in evolution because of conclusive evidence. I believe it is the hypothesis best supported by a preponderance of evidence. As evidence is accumlated for (and against) the hypothesis, my support for it will adjust accordingly.
You believe in God based on no evidence but purely on your faith in His existance. That is fine.
The difference is that my position can be influenced by reason where yours, as you admit, cannot.
I find it odd that you keep using this language denying speciation. Even odder that you're not the only antievolutionist here who makes a habit of doing so.
Although belief in fixed species, and that each individual species was separately created, was common among 19th Century creationists, I'm not aware of any leading modern creationist who argues for fixed species. Even the most conservative "special creationists" insist that, in some cases, entire Families represent a single "created kind," and therefore presumably exhibit common ancestry within the "kind".
The example mostly commonly cited by creationists themselves is the "horse kind," i.e. Equids. This includes horses, asses, and zebras. By the most "lumping," least "splitting" classification, there is one species of horse, three of ass and three of zebra. In addition to these seven living species, there are a couple dozen extinct. Other often cited "kinds" (creationists use the term "baramins") are equally or more diverse, e.g. dogs (Canidae), cats (Felidae), and camels (Camelidae, incl camels, dromedaries, llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, and guanacos).
Sometimes creationists have identified multiple Families or entire Sub-Orders as holobaramins (single created kinds) e.g. Mysticeti (filter feeding whales).
At least one entire Order, Testudines -- i.e. all turtles, tortoises and terrapins -- has been cited by multiple creationists as a possible "kind". This would link, for instance, the fully aquatic sea turtles and the desert dwelling tortoises by common descent! (Granted testudines are usually designated an "apobaramin," meaning it could contain more than one single created kinds or "holobaramin," but the point being that even creationists can't draw the lines, if any.)
[For the preceding examples, see the following article and "Table 1" linked therein: The Current Status of Baraminology (Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, 2006). Find more on "baraminology" here.]
What's more, strict young earth creationists, at least, those who believe in a global flood (Noah's Flood), hold that speciation not only occurred thousands and thousands of times, but that it occurred thousands of times faster than any evolutionist would consider plausible. (I.e., in order to generate current levels of species diversity from the small numbers of "kinds" preserved during the flood.)
So here are professional "creation scientists" universally conceding that various, often large, groups of relatively diverse organisms (most frequently corresponding to about the Family level of conventional classification, IOW several steps up from the species level) are related by common ancestry -- and yet many, if not most, of the lay creationists here on FR are pretending like it's still 1840, and denying speciation altogether.
This is quite remarkable. It's as if the evolutionists here were ignoring Darwin and instead spouting Lamarck. How can creationists be so ignorant of creationism?!