Replies

--Most Creationists supposedly, seriously weighing the physical evidence won't challenge the inconsistencies and contradictions of their acquire beliefs. Instead they look for weaknesses that appeal to them in present theories.--

The same can be said for the Darwinists. In fact, that is exactly what you have done in your little disertation.

What I find funny is that most Darwinists will insist that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of God's existence, yet any scientific evidence that supports His existence they emphatically deny and chastise the scientist as being a religious fundamentalist, whether or not it may be true.

What I find funny is that most Darwinists will insist that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of God's existence,...

I hold that evolution does not / cannot rule out the existence of God. Evolution has nothing to do with a creator but has everything to do with speciation.

....yet any scientific evidence that supports His existence they emphatically deny and chastise the scientist as being a religious fundamentalist, whether or not it may be true.

Show me some scientific evidence of His existence. Let the scientific community test and weigh this evidence, let me test and weigh this evidence (as I consider myself fairly objective). That is how you get your point across in the scientific community. I understand that any supposed evidence of a Creator will be met with howling and jeers from the SC but as they say..."extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary evidence".

EBUCK

"What I find funny is that most Darwinists will insist that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of God's existence, yet any scientific evidence that supports His existence they emphatically deny and chastise the scientist as being a religious fundamentalist, whether or not it may be true."

You are being disingenuous. My complaint is about the methods of reasoning. Religionists base their beliefs on circular reasoning; i.e., because I can imagine a God exists, there must be a God who put the idea in my mind." Such arguments helped carry Christianity through the Middle ages. The Church lost it's grip over Europeans when Renaissance men began looking at the world from the view of inductive reasoning as a means to make generalizations about the world in which they live. This is the same as the Scientific method. We look at physical evidence and we then postulate ideas to explain the cause of the evidence. We test our ideas by experimenting with the variables in our hypothesis. Eventually our experiments help to confirm or deny the validity of our ideas.

All religions set themselves up as a faith based belief. If they attempted to use science, someone would shortly find a flaw in it. However, religion is safe when based upon a circular argument. The premise is usually the testimony of some prophet to whom God revealed the truth. It can’t be tested, but it can be said over and over as true. You may find Darwinists funny, but I don’t find humor in the use of circular reasoning as used by religionists to attack credible science. It’s about as funny as watching fundamental Islamics blast historic statues of Buddha off the side of an Afghanistan mountain. If you want to be useful in the realm of science as it conflicts with religion, maybe you could spend time searching for valid physical evidence and proofs of historic religious miracles to support your faith.