I guess I have no particular reason not to be a member, bill, but though it might be in some ways advantageous to have a one to one , and thereby bypass all the badmouthing and vulgarity, those same offenders do their own case no favours, but rather demonstrate the poverty of their argument. that leaves you and I, and a couple of others debating in a civil manner. anyone else looking in can form their own conclusions, and as neither you nor I look to be bending in belief , private debate would only be on my radar if I had the time to tackle private and thread.
shimrod flatters himself. I got the joke, but the joke is on him, as either there are absolutes or there aint...I think it is known as a self refuting argument.
he also makes completely unwarranted comparison of Christian creation belief with violent islamists. if you want to go down that road again we can talk about atheist democide also.
sciencegeek.....what you posted may sound convincing , but only if what you assert can be verified. essentially, you are making the same argument as bill, and others, that all the scientific disciplines converge on, and support evolutionism [ that term is accurate enough for me , and I am not about to let you tell me the terms of discussion], but again, as I said to bill,....an argument from authority/ numbers[or variation thereof] really you are expecting us to just believe, that if we do just enough evolutionary reading we would all be evolutionists. the corollary of this, is that you are not able to produce much, if anything specific to evidence your position.....or maybe anything that creationists would grasp !
we on the other hand do deal in specifics, and I am happy to let anyone unbiased decide on explanations of the data.
mrrzy...I read the link...the usual equating of observable , testable science with unobservable ,unproven Darwinist belief.
ed...if you got an Alsatian, I got no interest in claiming its a poodle. in fact we could debate whether its one of scores of breeds..
origins, best I can tell, are a choice of 3, or variation thereof-
steady state
evolutionary
creation
does anyone still follow the first?
that essentially leaves the two options. I fully recognize that there is the faith factor in creation, though, I believe more in accord with observational science. my aim is to dent the faith of evolutionists, and inform those who accept it blindly of the evidence against it. thankfully, though being a scientist would be a great benefit, some of the more simple arguments are useful too.