are you implying that einstein's theories on light and gravity are incorrect? what, if any, science do you feel is reliable?

Christians in this forum generally only go after evolution; kind of refreshing to have one who rejects science across the board.
This could also help demarginalize Pletho.

anyone alluding to proving a negative ought to be banned from this forum.

and i don't think anyone's come forward yet to say that gawd talked to them

It is still early.

We must have faith.

I want Bunny to post his experience. He's like the smartest guy I know who had such an experience.

Equating rejection of evolution with rejection of science requires evolution to be legitimate science. Since it's actually a handwavy pseudo-scientific fraud, rejecting it is, if anything, a service to science.

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is primarily contentious in the United States. However, it is also important in other countries where creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, or portray the modern evolutionary synthesis as an inadequate scientific paradigm.

Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute, creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.

ty for posting this because it concisely and conclusively demonstrates that you have exactly --> 0 <-- knowledge about science and how it works.

Oh yeah? How so? Or are personal attacks the limit of what you have to work with?

This kind of opinion is just sad. Take some classes or something. It is the best theory we have. I generally respect your knowledge of Christianity and overall intelligence, but to make a statement like that shows significant ignorance. You're seriously telling me that tens of thousands of people in the fields of biology, neurobiology, evolutionary biology, zoology, genetics, comparative anatomy and paleontology among scores of others have been wasting their time committing scientific fraud? Coordinating that kind of deception is logistically impossible. The probability of that many people contributing supporting evidence for over 100 years, but doing it independently and in a "hand-wavy" fraudulent manner is also impossible. That kind of assertion is just laughable. People have said the same thing about climate-change scientists and been wrong. To say that about people studying evolution and its implications would be thousands of times worse.

I'll provide links you can review. I also have access to nearly every scholarly journal in existence and can provide you with pdfs of relevant articles you won't be able to get from google. I can't blame you for being a theist and I wouldn't denigrate your intelligence for being one, but taking that kind of stance on evolution is beyond my comprehension.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf054/sf054b06.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecul...s_of_evolution

http://www.siue.edu/artsandsciences/...eEvolution.pdf

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles..._Evolution.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3893028

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthou...al_speciat.php

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_co...on_new_species

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6823589

http://www.pnas.org/content/74/9/3942.full.pdf+html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2460440

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/11604.html

No, I'm not saying that.

To the extent what actual scientists are doing involves evolution, it is micro-evolution, which is a legitimate phenomenon as has been well know for thousands of years. The pseudo-science is the fiction of macro-evolution.

Some of those links may be too advanced.

Start with something more "accessible".

You're quite apparently not nearly educated enough on evolution to make this statement. Also, differentiating between micro and macro evolution is meaningless. You can start with the links I provided. I can dig up more inaccessible journal articles and email you the pdfs. You'd be better off taking some classes first, however, to gain the background necessary to understand the research. I hope you'll take the time to study, but I suspect you will not.

Lol, I see the discussion has degenerated to the personal attack stage while my substantive objections go unanswered.

Prove that there is no pair of integers a and b such that a/b = sqrt(2).

I didn't make a personal attack. Your comments illustrate you are not educated enough on evolution. And, when you make ignorant statements like "Since it's actually a handwavy pseudo-scientific fraud, rejecting it is, if anything, a service to science," it's hard to take you seriously. You haven't raised a substantive objection. I gave you sources to begin researching and I have many more I can post as well as email you journal articles. So, what are you waiting for?

I usually recommend deprogramming first. Then education.

I'm waiting for you to stop trying to redirect the discussion onto what you imagine to be my qualifications and go back to making conspicuously feeble attempts at defending the pseudo-science of macro-evolution. You can start with the absurdly handwavy assertion that macro-evolution is merely micro-evolution over a longer time.

I don't understand. I provided you with many links to observed examples of speciation, and review articles on our current understanding of evolution among others. They should begin to answer any questions you may have. There's no point in me simply copy and pasting a ton of information that's right there for you to review. If you have specific contentions with what I've posted, or rebuttal links, please post them and I, or perhaps someone with more experience in this specific field, can try to answer them for you.

They could... but they must be hiding in my case.

That's not how it works. It is well into fail territory to just post a bunch of links and say "see, I answered... it's in that pile somewhere". You haven't met the burden of explaining yourself until you actually do so.

Specifically what in those links am I to consider supporting citations for your claim of macro-evolution being nothing more than micro-evolution over a longer time? And, just as importantly, why do you think so?

So far those links are just a rehash of the same old insufficient evidence and logic. It's not my job to read though multiple off-site pages in an attempt to piece together the argument you are trying to make.

e=mc^2, MADE UP TO MANIPULATE THE PEOPLE

talking donkeys = PROOF OF GOD

Now really, which of us is being manipulated?

Seriously - how did "You can't prove a negative" gain so much traction?

God has never spoken to me - I don't think my spiritual experiences are what the OP is referring to. Although I believe to have genuinely interacted with God, I am quite comfortable acknowledging that might be a delusion and consider the actual source of the experience to be something of an open question. I certainly don't consider myself to know God exists.

I reckon if he spoke to me I'd either become convinced he existed or that I was deluded.