That's quite clear. However, she has also given some scientific misinformation here, which as I said I would like to clear up for the record. I'm sure you all here would do the same if you found someone misrepresenting creationist views, as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm not after debate in this thread as such, but we've had scientists called liars here, and we've had some erroneous scientific information. Is it not OK for me to highlight these things? Presumably people here are interested in accuracy and truthfulness?



This is making the assumption that evolution is a religion like creationism is, something to be believed in. I've explained before that it holds about as much emotional or spirital impact for me as "believing in" gravity. What I see is that there is a great deal of evidence for it, simple enough. And science is not taken by scientists as absolute truth, because there should always be room for change when new evidence comes to light. Have creationists brought forward this new evidence, which they would like to overturn evolution? No. In the thread about the Grand Canyon and the flood in the creation/evolution forum, no creationist has presented a shred of scientific evidence that the Grand Canyon was carved in any way other than that accepted by geologists.



Theories are not just ideas. They have gone through the scientific process of "passing" many tests, which have not shown them to be invalid, which is why they still exist as theories. Again, gravity is a "theory," but do we ever say such a thing, as if we really think it might be possible for it to suddenly fail one day?

There is a lot of evidence for evolution and an old earth, if one is interested in learning about it, which is what should happen at school. And those who teach it need to first understand it. With all due respect, as I recall, you yourself were not aware that humans did not evolve from apes; in actuality, humans and apes have a common ancestor. There's also genetic evidence (as well as archaeological) that the human race is rather older than Adam, but we can go into that in the designated forum perhaps.



So your personal beliefs are the true ones? Again, what is your method for validating this? If people are free to construct their own ideas of reality, how do we know what is real? If someone tells me that the earth is flat and that we are being invaded by aliens, then how do I falsify that if there's no way to objectively measure or study reality, and science is just relegated to another set of someone's beliefs which we may or may not accept according to personal preference?

How would we learn anything about the world that way? How would we ever have moved past thinking that lightning was from the gods (or God) and that eclipses were signs that the gods (or God) were angry?



It's a logical approach to a discussion. If you have a difference of opinion with someone else, you could argue about who's right all night, and possibly the most charismatic person would win, whether they were actually correct or not. Or, if you really want to get at the truth, you can try backing your statements up with evidence. For example, I say that some basic evidence that evolution occurs is the sorting of the fossil record, various ways of dating the earth, and genetics, and I can go into detail about each. Anyone wishing to tell me I'm wrong needs to address this evidence, they need to show why their alternative model explains it better.



There's little room for doubt that the earth is old and that evolution occurs. As I said, I've learned a lot from debating with creationists and having to do research myself. I've learned a lot more science than I did in school, and I've learned a lot from scientists and people with scientific knowledge. I love learning and I love that eureka moment of discovering something new.



Mercury is no longer an issue with me, but I am still quite ill, and have been for 4 years. I am brain-fogged among other things, and debating helps me try to keep my mind sharp. We can choose not to talk about these things if they are distressing or if we're just too "out of it." I'm a patient person at peace with things as a rule, but since I've been ill I have to check my annoyance at times, I can be irritable.



I'm not sure how that would work, maybe you can enlighten me.



And this is a major reason why creationism is not science. Creationism takes one specific view and decides that all evidence must fit it, however awkward that evidence may be. Science looks at the evidence first and foremost, and formulates hypotheses based on that evidence. When scientists become dogmatic about a paradigm (as some do, for example in believing that "paranormal" phenomena are impossible), they stray from science. Skepticism, a necessary part of the scientific method, is nothing more than an open-minded focus on evidence.

Thanks for your polite posts by the way. It's nice to have a civil discussion in which I am not called names and not told that I'm a God-hating heathen. I've heard it all before and it's dull. It's also nice sometimes to put these differences aside and focus on health issues in the mercury forum, where most of us have more in common.