Bex I have to say it's refreshing to talk here with someone who sticks to the point and does not insult. This is more like how a proper debate ought to be.

Be aware, though, of what I was pointing out about Flew. It's impossible to really know what he is thinking. He is certainly not the person he was because he has dementia and his memory is shot. He did not write that book, though his name is on it, so when you discuss the beliefs it contains I think it's misleading to attribute them to him. That's what the creationists who wrote it for him want you to do. There's something pretty despicable in wheeling out an invalid so that you can manipulate him for your own purposes.

I've been talking with Russ about this idea that life is irreducibly complex. First of all, I will again add the caveat that abiogenesis -- the theory that life arose from organic material -- is not actually part of the theory of evolution, and in itself neither validates nor invalidates it. But what abiogenesis says is that the very beginnings of life were molecues that were self-replicating. Not cells, not nuclei, not even DNA. Something very, very basic. If you actually look into the research that has been done on this, it does not seem so implausible. Am I going to insist that this is the way life began? No. There isn't a whole lot of evidence for the way life began and it seems to me that there are lots of possibilities, some of which no one has even thought of yet. Abiogenesis is one possibility. You can believe a god created life in the very beginning too, lots of people do.

You also present the false dichotomy that is heard from many fundamentalists: that either the Bible is factually true, or it is entirely false and gets thrown out altogether. There are many people in the world -- the majority of Christians in fact -- who have no trouble reconciling faith in God with more of a metaphorical understanding of the Bible. What you demand is that every word in it be taken literally. Unfortunately this means trying to shoehorn a lot of observable reality into this very narrow view, and forcing the facts to conform to your world view. This is what so-called creation "scientists" do and by doing so they invalidate themselves as scientists, because true scientists do not attempt to fit what they observe into a pre-determined idea.

SS, do you know how fossils are dated? You are now trying to claim that "evolutionists" are guilty of the same error -- that they want to shoehorn observable reality into a narrow predetermined view. Why? I have no "need" to "believe in" evolution. There are simply mountains of facts that point to the earth being old, and life having evolved. If it's there in front of my eyes then I see no logical reason to try to deny it.

If you are going to claim that radioisotope dating is wrong, then can you explain how so? Can you explain how fossils are found in undisturbed layers of rock, volcanic ash, etc, that are underneath other layers of rock that are millions of years old? You do understand that by its very nature (of being rock), a fossil does not decompose? You understand the processes by which fossils can be made, presumably? This isn't rocket science. And rocks erode at observable rates too, depending on their composition and condition, though only if they are exposed to weathering or subduction or somesuch process. What do you mean, evolutionists have not observed this? They have also observed that some rocks are older than others. They can date them. They can date the fossils in the rocks. Some are older than others. I don't see a logical point here. Evolutionists don't paste 10-million year old dates on everything. If they did, they would not be studying how the human race evolved in the past few million years would they?

Bex, nice point about the logic in me talking about bigfoot. I just refer you back to evidence. There's a lot of evidence that something like bigfoot exists in various areas around the world. That maybe the Loch Ness monster exists. I say the idea of a pterosaur is insane because I see no evidence there, just some pictures (my husband, an amateur photographer, will tell you how very easy it is to fake a picture) and some creationists desperately wanting to show the world that dinosaurs are still alive. If anyone offers better evidence then I'll take it into account. Though remember, it's entirely possible for creatures to survive relatively unchanged in ecological niches. Crocodiles and scorpions, for example, have existed more or less as they are for many millions of years.

SS I do not fear the idea of a god. I just decided that the belief in an anthropomorphic single creator of everything doesn't fit my world view. And I'll remind you that I told you I would not engage in discussions with you if you make personal comments. Accusing me of being unstable, needing counselling, relying on psych meds, etc is again beyond the pale. I don't give a damn what else you have to say about anything but you leave personal matters out of it, understand? I don't come on here making pot-shots at your personality but you seem to think it's OK to do this to others. Do it again and don't expect another word from me, I've had enough of it.

BTW attacking your opponent, rather than their argument, is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. People often resort to it when they can't find a way to address the argument itself.