I believe both theories of origins should be taught (with both the confirming and the negating information) to schools. I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught. I am not the one who absolutely refuses to allow any dissent. Evolutionists are.
So you are trying to tell scientists how to teach sciemce I'm sorry, but I don't recall telling ANY scientist what they do. I expressed my BELIEF of how I think it should be taught. I did not mandate anyone do anything. Again, Evolutionists are the ones mandating what be taught and, as a whole, ANY theory that contradicts them (creationist or not) is frowned upon and not taught.
As a rule, we don't teach 'dissenting' views in science. 2+2=3 is not treated as discussable alternative to 2+2=4. It's not a field where there are equally valid alternate views of the same thing. There is right, and there is wrong. For example, there is a fringe group of physicists who reject relativistic physics, but we don't teach 'objections' to relativity. Look at my list of scientists who have expressed doubt regarding Darwinism. They aren't all creationists by any means. They are highly qualified folks who have published their observations. Their observations, be they creation or non-creation are hardly the equivalent of 2+2=3, and the fact that you would draw such an analogy is further evidence of the bad faith which you operate under. To you, the theory is undeniable truth and anything or anyone who dares to question it will be dismissed, denied, or ignorred.
frequently there have been assertions made about the data I post as being "contrary to the laws of physics" or something to that affect, but without substantiation.
I agree they should say more than that, but on the other hand you go on to post ...
Genetics is one of the strongest enemies AGAINST evolution, not for it.
...which looks like the same sort of uncorroborated assertion. How much time have you spent comparing the genomes of related organisms? What in those genomes contradicts evolution?
I will gladly provide you with genetic information which does not support evolution in another post. I'm addressing this one at this point.
On what basis are you Christians? If you ignore Genesis 1-11 as being "morality tales" and don't see them as literal then you destroy the foundation for the rest of Christian belief. If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity
As has been frequently noted, the largest single Christian denomination, Roman Catholicism, claims Christian theology is compatible with evolution. BTW, I said many here are Christians. I made no statement on my own behalf.
And you have to look at what authority they base that upon. They base that upon the Pope's say-so, which is fine if they want to do that, but they do not base it upon a plain reading of Scripture. I stand by my statement of the biblical record AND the implications of allegorizing Genesis 1-11.
More than a few, and no, it is not overwhelming. You tested a rock and it tested to be about 4.6 billion years old. Other tests have given results of greater or lesser ages. New lava rocks have tested to be 100,000 years old or more. The science is not as solid as you think.
There are no 4.6 billion year old terrestrial rocks. The oldest, AFAIK, are 3.5 billion years. If you do a literature search from a university library, using a decent search engine, you'll find literally thousands of hits on radioactive dating. The overwhelming majority of these studies give dates compatible with geological age determined by other methods. Meteorites which have hit the earth have been tested in the range I stated.
I know the science. I've read the science. I understand the science. I talk to people who do the science. I use some of the same techniques myself. The body of evidence on the antiquity of the earth's rocks is as solid as the rock itself. Or as solid as evolutionist presuppositions. Some rocks, same rock mind you, have been tested by a variety of methods and have tested to be different ages. All of this assumes uniformity as well, which is not a given but is demanded by evolutionary theory.
I do not feel "steamrolled."
Yet you complained it was unfair you were having to go up against specialists in their own fields.I complain that it is unfair to have my sources completely discounted at every turn because of their creationist leanings. I admit I do not have the formal training to counter these "specialists" however, I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists, as evidenced by my earlier post on those who question Darwinism.
I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists, as evidenced by my earlier post on those who question Darwinism.I have not had the time to follow all the arguments here, however, not universally accepted is a strong statement. Not unversally accepted by who? Born again Christians, scientists, the lay public? What percent of each does not accept? I would love to see the sources for this statement.
I complain that it is unfair to have my sources completely discounted at every turn because of their creationist leanings. I don't see that that has happened here.
I have seen people express their opinions, learned through long experience, that creationist sources are often flawed, but that's a different thing than what you describe.
I admit I do not have the formal training to counter these "specialists" however, I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists,
So? I can't think of any concept that is "universally accepted", including "the Earth is not flat".