lost another post last night. I think I am getting behind.

several things...first, thanks to EdT for the vote of confidence in my 'style'. I try to discuss/debate only with those who listen ... whether they agree with me or not. Agreement is not required- civility is. It is awkward... to me, anyway... to have the not-so-civil on my side of the issue, 'helping'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

so, a reply to Pete from several days ago:
Pete, you said
"I am not claiming that everything must be known before a theory can be considered sound, but just saying it is , because you could cite any or all of 379 sites, is not providing any other evidence than that 379 sites say it is true !. I have rarely quoted bible, so that part of your charge is hardly relevant ..straw man , maybe...I have always admitted my faith position. however, I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story.
if you can bring evidence ,other than appeals to numbers/authority you might make a case,..."

First, "straw man" is not relevant...but bible is always relevant as a general case, as it form the basis of your position. You say that it..(the authority of the bible) is supported by "experimental, observational science". Some biblical history IS obviously supported.... certain kings, places and stories were referred to in other writings.... some can still be visited. None of this supports taking everything in the bible literally as a basis for 'faith' in the many complex and often contradictory religious claims. How can I say it? Faith is faith is faith....the word MEANS belief in something that cannot BE proven by science or observation.
   When you deny the strength of 379..or 1486.. sites & studies, you undermine the very basis of what it means to have experts who collect and correlate data! If the topic were farming practices, or the efficiency of diesel engines or of the relative use of fire retardant materials, you'd not have too much difficulty in seeing the value of agreements of experts, even if a few could be found who disagreed on certain concepts.
But when the topic is carbon dating of human remains back to 35,000 years or so, or comparative DNA studies between humans and other primates, or contradictory translations of ancient documents, you place **subjective filters** based on interpretation of biblical passages between the data and its analysis. Then you cite 'creation scientists' who use the same filters to deny the collective wisdom of the vast majority.
You can 'believe' that the basic origin of "everything" is spiritual... *shrug*... but it is not rational to insert a religious view to decide issues which are not in its realm of study. The very process of doing so is circular and depends on assuming the very things which are being used AS proof.

When I was in high school, 60 years ago, I was shown the argument:
1)God is, by definition, the most perfect being that can exist.
2)The most perfect being must obviously have existence as one of its attributes'
3)Therefore, God exists.

I shook my head in awe at the clear flaws in that, even though I didn't then know the technical words for its errors. Since then, I have seen many arguments (not all religious) based on similar misunderstanding of reason. In the above example, #1 implicitly assumes #3. #3 'may' be correct, but the syllogism is totally flawed. In the same way, the attempt to use logic to refute the definitions and conclusions of science one does not approve of, must itself be subject to the rules OF logic, and not just arbitrarily 'interpreted'. If that sounds complicated, read it again...carefully.

Science is designed to be self-correcting when new data is found. The process can be slow & awkward in some cases, but when many experts attack the same issues, progress usually results. Gould explains this in great detail in the early chapters of "Wonderful Life"..the story of the Burgess Shale. The early researchers assumed that the strange fossils they found were just odd forms of current phyla. It took a number of years and some technological advances and some "ah-ha!" insights to re-evaluate most specimens as totally different, many eons extinct forms. Once that barrier was broken, many other things fell into place about age, continental drift, tectonic uplift and the means of preservation. No one claims that 'we' are descended specifically from things like Wiwaxia, but there is NO compelling, testable evidence that we 'just appeared' about 8000 years ago. God may have kick-started everything, but he left it to us to sort out the details as best we can.....