"So let's have it. What's the other scientific interpretation of the wealth of evidence that supports evolution?"

Ah... calling for the OTHERS side's explanation of THEIR stuff, without giving the explanation of your OWN stuff!

I see...

Nonsense.

Science has put its cards on the table.

The scientific community's interpretation of the evidence is well known. They have determined that the evidence supports evolution. It was, after all, a study of physical data that led Darwin to formulate to the Theory of Evolution in the first place.

Incidentally, the proponents of ID have also agreed that the physical evidence supports evolution. They do not dispute any of the actual facts of evolution, after all.

In contrast, you claim that there is some sort of bias in the interpretation of the evidence. When pressed for an alternate interpretation, however, you have failed to provide one.

So tell us. If there is an alternate interpretation that addresses the evidence, where is it? Why do Creationists hide it?

Yum!

I may remember incorrectly, but it seems that you have, in the past, said something about accepting creation primarily as an act of faith, not as scientific reasoning.

As a matter of policy I don't argue with or challenge such people.

If I'm wrong, we can do battle.

"The Bible says that it is inspired (God-breathed) by God and that It does not have any origin in the will of man. Thus, it is a first-hand eyewitness account."

God wrote Himself, personally, without any intermediaries? If not, then it is NOT a first-hand eyewitness account.

"Do you have empirical evidence to refute this?"

1. The Deluge. Somehow, the entire world was covered with water to the point of being a bad Kevin Costner flick about 5-6,000 years ago, but there is exactly zero physical evidence to support said event having occured.

2. The Tower of Babel. Linguistic evidence does not support the notion that all of the languages of the world came into existence at the same instant.

3. Assuming that all men and women are descended from Eve...where the heck did Cain, Abel, and Seth get their wives? Or did they engage in incest? (Yuck.)

4. Mark, in his Gospel, manages to mislocate some important sites in Palestine.

Big Time!

"Do you have empirical evidence that it is not eyewitness testimony?"

Yes.

I've noticed it wasn't one of MY replies....

It's the collective whole, not any one post that inspired my placemarker.

Today I'm content just to kick back and watch the fireworks (and maybe even get a little work done today).

I predicated it with an "if" (not for may sake, but for others...I am convinced).

Evos generally don't bother with the "if" (like the HOX gene mutation in lobe-finned fishes and/or certain alleged feathered-dinosaurs...that weren't).

And never ask about the evolutionary if (lest ye be called many bad things).

Do you agree with the "fuzziness" aspect of evolution and that one cannot explain, without assumed conclusions, the evolution of a simple single cell from primordial soup to all of the diverse and complex life observeable today?

It's a matter of jury trial:

The twelve have to listen to testimony, for they were not privy to the crime scene.

To use to allegory of breakfast - the chicken has some part in it, but the pig puts his very life into it.

For so many people, who have given their lives, to advance what some call fairy tales, the things THEY say weigh a bit more heavily on my decision making than those who are merely arguing a scientific theory.

3. Assuming that all men and women are descended from Eve...where the heck did Cain, Abel, and Seth get their wives? Or did they engage in incest? (Yuck.)

It's worse than that. Everyone is descended from Noah and his children. There should only be one version of the Y chromosome. And speaking of incest...

Are you saying it wasn't our souls created in the image of God, but our bodies?

Do you believe God has a physical body that ours is modeled after?

Great. You mean, everybody, everywhere, is a bunch of inbred yahoos? (Cue "Dueling Banjos" from Deliverance...)

Linguistic evidence does not support the notion that all of the languages of the world came into existence at the same instant.

Ya gotta sync the time markers on the tape just right....

Does the Linguistic evidence support the notion that all of the languages of the world came into existence evolving from one another?

(and maybe even get a little work done today).

Dang! It's almost three and I've done NOTHING yet! (The ol' lady'll kill me!)

I'm soon gone!

There are so many good ones to choose from.

I've just found a new one, just by Googling "joke westphalia": here's the link and relevant passage:

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2005/30-1/larouche_301.html

To prevent catastrophic, perpetual, worldwide religious warfare — the ultimate clash of civilisations — LaRouche demands that Bush adopt the LaRouche Doctrine for Southwest Asia. Listening to his rambling talk, it is difficult to make out just what the LaRouche Doctrine for Southwest Asia is except that it apparently "follows precisely the guidelines of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia."

Oh, it's the way he tells 'em... :-)

And I do know how to unstop my toilet

The best way is to stop taking a bath in it

The fuzziness you seem to be speaking of appears to relate to abiogenesis. Do I understand you correctly? If so, you do know, I'm sure, that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

As far as hucksters go, they're in every line of work. I try to avoid painting the large majority of forthright people in their various endeavors with a few extreme examples. Kind of like not trying to paint Christianity with the likes of Swaggert and Bakker.