Yes I have and the ones supporting your position invariably show that they don't really understand science. Most times they don't even understand the theory of evolution.
With all due respect, I'm honestly getting the feeling that you feel that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. How is it that you understand science but scientists don't?
At this point I can't even tell if your "scientists" are even scientists at all. I know Hovind isn't. His degree is in Christian education. It's obvious when he speaks that he knows little about how things work. His points about conservation of momentum and the second law of thermodynamics are especially humorous since those are areas that I studied in order to get my engineering degree.
I've watched numerous lectures from highly-qualified scientists that make convincing arguments.
Yet failed to point to even one.
I have yet to hear a single one from you.
If you write, I will read.
I've done my homework. That research is up to you.
Well, I've done my homework and listened to supporting information from both sides. My research shows that the vast majority of people that support your point of view regarding evolution don't really know what they are talking about. The ones that do know what they are talking about typically leave out or ignore evidence that contradicts their position.
In all honestly, this sounds more like political speech.
The most amazing thing about evolution is the incredible level of blindness that one has to endure to accept it.
None of the physical laws exists that facilitate evolution. No honest evidence has been provided. Hoax after hoax has been exposed. And the political arm of the "scientific" community wants us to believe that:
water + rocks = cells
and that
cells + natural selection + time = highly complex, symmetrical, sexual (separate organisms with perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines.
Honest evolutionists and paleontologists have come forward to say:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M001kJust as a simple example of many fundamental problems with evolution, if the myriad of transitional forms exists, then why is there disagreement among paleontologists. Why don't they just show them to us.
The evolutionist response is to say, "Well, transitions happened quickly and didn't leave transitions behind".
What questions were those 2 paleontologists asked? Some transitional forms are more difficult to find because the transition is small. Transitionals between large taxonomic groups do exist. The Whale transitionals are a good example of the transition from land to sea creature despite the relatively close relationship.
It's honestly insane to believe that such complex changes to organisms could happen in a short time (or a long time). This idea was abandon years ago, and rightly so.
So where does this leave us?
I guess I'm insane. Watch out I might drop a satellite on your head.
It leave us with zero evidence, zero physical laws supporting the processes, and yet, it is the most widely taught religion in the world.
What an incredible irony and a disgrace to science, yet, you stubbornly hold that those opposing your position "don't know that they are talking about".
That's because I have done my homework and looked at the evidence put forth by both sides.
You're putting your time in here to help people...except me apparently.
I have helped you and I have provided information for you. I just don't do all your work for you.
True. Right at the point where you have to actually support your information with evidence, you drop the ball in my lap. Thanks a lot.
You see, I know human nature well enough to know that those who care about something become self-educated about it (on their own). Those who don't care, don't.
So, this is not a matter of me educating you. The real issue is this:
Do you care enough about the answer to search it out?
Yes. I told you that I have done my homework. Why don't you believe me?
You won't know until you try. You're not Christ so you can't be the judge of what I will gain from your evidence. That's like saying you won't tell someone about the salvation message because they won't respond to it anyway. You don't know if I have a passion for truth or not.
Not true.
It is possible to know things through inference. Science uses this technique all the time.
You have stated that you already know about salvation, and as far as evidence goes, I do make a judgement call that you really don't want to find the evidence against evolution because it threatens your job and personal comfort. You have provided numerous indicators of this.
Sorry but belief in evolution does not have any effect on my employment. I have several coworkers who believe in the 6-day creation and a young earth. No-one has threatened to fire them and their positions on the age of the earth are not ridiculed. I have been told by each one of them that I am calling God a liar. Interesting.
How is it that I can find evidence and you can't?
maybe if you showed it to me I could answer this question effectively. Right now I think it is confirmation bias but that is an inference based on my experience with other creationists and may not apply to you.
I have provided my discernment about your frame of mind, and I don't believe I'm wrong.
And the guy in the institution that thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't believe he's wrong either. So what?
Finally, it's not "my" evidence. It's just evidence.
Really? Show it to me and then I would be able to evaluate it myself.
Because no-one who believes in the six day creation has ever gone to war to conquer other people.
War is justified by evolution simply for the act of bettering yourself.
The implicit underlying philosophy of evolution is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".The only justification for war for a Christian is self defense and a command of God.
Or if God says "Go kill them all and take the land that I have promised to Abraham"
An example of defense is this. You come into my house with a gun acting as if you're going to murder me, therefore, I have a right to kill you to defend my life. That's Biblical law.
Verse please.
Now, for someone like you who attempts to wet his foot in both ponds (evolution and the Bible) there are bigger problems as the belief systems are incompatible.
So, you are not only harboring inconsistencies about evolution but you are harboring inconsistencies about the Bible.
To respond directly to your statement:
I'm defending truth, not everyone who has transgressed it.
hubris.
