That can be said for both sides of the issue.



And this also is not a one sided action as you imply here. I have out debated a few evolutionists who then refused to debate me anymore, or left the forum. And this also goes for a few e-mail debates I have gotten into as well.

The reason I usually quit a debate is when I find a evolutionist to be into Narcissism: Self love based on self image or ego. Evolution seems to feed this problem because you can always make a new reality for every situation so that you always look like you are Always right. In other words, it feeds a know it all attitude.



I have heard the name, but I have no idea who the person is.



Okay, I tell you what. Let's see if science will allow anyone who wants to believe freely in creation work a NASA, go into space, control all evidence that comes from any sector of science. Then I would believe that you could be non-bias when you look at creation evidence.

Here's ia an example, just in case you don't get my meaning here. Let's say the Hubble Telescope was put up by a creationist group. And all the stuff they were looking at they were applying to creation and the Creator.

Would you trust this information because it comes from a "group" that only has "one goal"? And that is to prove creation and a Creator. Of course you would not because you could clearly see there was an agenda here.

Now, you see what I see about all of science. Science has the agenda to prove evolution only because that is all that is "allowed to exist" as the main theory in science. Not even other evolution idea that go outside of Darwinism is allowed to even be considered.

Which by the way proves that science now has an agenda which makes all it's claims and discoveries conform to that agenda while all other evidence gets rejected or ignored. And that agenda has such a grasp in the science field that if anyone, including a another scientists, dared to challenge this agenda. Would have their credibility destroyed.

Agendas causes everyone involved to become bias towards any other idea. And it also causes anyone who would challenge the agenda to become bias about there own ideas because that is the only way you can match the same bias that is presented to you.

In fact, if evolution were the only thing that science was trying to prove, then anytype of evolution would be looked into and researched, and money spent on to prove evolution. But we all know o so well the politics of Darwinian evolution. And what happens to anyone that would challenge it from either side of the fence.

Any theory that has to operate under such total control in my opinion is no longer a theory. Because all theories have to be questionable and therefore falsifiable. The main reason no one can even come close to falsifying it, is not because of the claimed mountains of evidence, but is because it is so well protected by Darwinists who will go to any length to do so.

In fact, name any other evolution idea that was ever looked at for more than 5 minutes since Darwinism took total control of the evolution theory?

Now name any other evolution idea that challenged Darwinian evolution that was researched and the same amount of time was spent on it to make sure it was not a better alternative.

There will never be no other theory, idea, etc... That will ever has as much money, man hours, papers written, more ideas added to, and support mechanism made to conform to it, then evolution has.

And because it is now intertwined into every aspect of science. To falsify it would bring change so many fields of science. That just from that alone would not even make it feasible as being falsifiable.

Don't believe me? Ponder removing evolution theory from science. Then ponder the trickle down affect on every field of science.

Now ponder all the papers that will become useless and thrown away. All the man hours that become useless and thrown away. All the fields of science that will basically close up because evolution is the only reason it exists. All the money spent that cannot be returned.

In fact name one area of science that you could look towards that evolution has not become intertwined into it some how? You cannot.

So to make evolution falsifiable is to make all of science falsifiable and that will never happen. So science has basically made evolution unfalsifiable because it's very core of all that it is, is now part of every part of what science is and wants to become.

Question: How does a theory get that much control over a whole area of reasearch and still remain a falsifiable theory?

Example: Let's take the theory of gravity. It affects everything and could be considered a varible in every experiment. But you don't see it taking control of every aspect of science just because it can affect every area of science.

Now how do you think that for some reason that Darwinian evolution has to have such control as a theory in science, but yet theories like gravity don't? Yet both can affect all fields of science but only one demands control?

Now since we have separated what is different from the evolution theory and all other theories. We will use deductive reasoning to find out what going on.

Since total control is not a theory issue, then what is it really connected to? Man. Man's wants and man's needs. So let's define control so we make sure we understand...

Control: power to direct or determine; "under control". Exercise authoritative control or power over; the activity of managing or exerting control over something;

Now we take and add Narcissism: Self love based on self image or ego. To "control", and what do you have?

You have man who wants and needs evolution to be true. That is the factor that is added to the theory of evolution that makes it have to have control. But why control?

What is the main opponent of evolution? The only other "belief" that deals with origins of life that challenges evolution on every level. But how does a belief challenge a theory?

Because the word theory makes the action of believing sound scientific. Because if you take away the meaning of what a theory is. The only explaination left is that you "believe" in evolution. And belief takes faith. And even today with the word theory around, people still say: I "believe" in evolution.

Belief and faith is a heart felt issue. And heart felt issues will make people say: Evolution is a true fact. Which is a oxymoron statement if evolution is to remain falsifiable.

But now we get to the core of why control is needed.

Because belief and faith is a heart felt issue, it also makes the theory become a personal issue. It's about like making evolution the most important thing in a evolutionist's life. Just like "belief" in God becomes the most important thing in a Christians life.

So do you see? Two "beliefs" colliding because they conflict. And if not, then scientifically explain why evolutionists waste so much time competing with a religious belief if what they believe does not fall into that same category as well? So basically, how does a non-religous belief compete with a religious one unless it is a belief in itself disguised as a theory?

Do you, or do you not "believe" in evolution?