Belief in something that can't be proven can only be sustained based on what?A preponderance of the evidence.
You're loathe to admit that 'evidence' is not conclusive.
No, I am not. The 'evidence' is not conclusive.
Therefore your theory cannot be proven.
Which theory?
You don't like it that I use that word.
If you mean either the word "faith" or the word "proof" then my objection to your use of them is that it's false (and inane).
I don't blame you.
I don't have anything against you either. My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy.
Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO. I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin. I don't seek to make that case. Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence. Well, I disagree.
It's certaily your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.
I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.
"My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy."
Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban, just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.
If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.
Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.
The holes in your evidence don't disuade me. The holes in my evidence should not disuade you. This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong. None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.
Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics. Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground.