I asked you to start a new thread on this topic instead of derailing the current one. But no . . . :nope:

What a colossal chicanery! You say that The bIble confirms science and then you invoke dubious "scholars" from thousands of years ago to represent science?

First of all "Scholars" did not believe that "at one time thousands of years ago that the earth was supported by 4 large elephants standing on the back of a giant sea turtle." There is a Native American creation myth that says that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. But the Iroquois had no scholars, only shamans.

In the Discworld comic fantasy books by Terry Pratchett, the Discworld is a flat disc that rests on the backs of four huge elephants which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle as it slowly swims through space. Are you comparing the Bible to novels? Now you may be on to something.

The true scholars who have used the old parable of "The Infinite Turtle Theory", like Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking, were using it as a metaphor addressing the problem of infinite regression. It's cleverer than "the chicken or the egg".

Job 26:7 may say that God hung the earth on nothing, but that is not what science says. The earth is part of an ordered solar system in an ordered galaxy. Space itself is not "nothing".

Once again you are not comparing The Bible to science, you are comparing it to other creation myths. :insane:

I'm still waiting for the first one, chum. Start a new thread and I'll address them one by one. :grin:

Which Greek Philosophers? What did they actually say?

This are invented terms by creationists and not recognized by scientists. It is a lame attempt to acknowledge some of the preponderance of evolutionary evidence while denying the rest of it.

Correct. Creationism is a religious philosophy, while evolution is science. I'm glad you understand this.

This is totally erroneous and completely unsupportable. Furthermore it has already been addressed at length in this thread. Simply repeating your dubious claims does not make them any less false.

Evolution, as you state above, is plainly observable throughout nature. There is no micro and macro. Evolution science is far more complex than that.

Totally false. Already asked and answered many posts ago. Stop repeating old, shot-down claims. Have you got anything new to offer?

Horsechit. We observe that species evolve into other species and have for as far back as we have fossils for evidence. We are increasingly armed with DNA evidence that entirely supports the paleo evidence. You disagree whole heartedly and stand there and say that you agree "on the whole". I don't think you do.

Please . . . start a thread on the topic and I'll destroy this notion for you. You clearly want to talk about the Bible, like your TideFan partner, you are getting further and further away from any kind of scientific challenge to evolution.

Fine, just stop suggesting that centuries of scientific evidence must be in error if something "seems unreasonable" to you. Stand on your faith. Good for you. Stop trying to use your faith to dismiss science. You can do it in your mind, but you can't do it in a logical argument.

There are if you bother to look. Overwhelming evidence, as I have presented before, at length. Your capacity to simply ignore evidence is astonishing.

It is not a fact at all. You provide no evidence or logical conclusions to support such a belief. And that is what it is-- a religious belief. It doesn't even rise to the point of being a scientific hypothesis which requires that it be based on observations and the scientific method can be used to test it.

Who do you think exposed the hoaxes? They did not survive critique and testing. Instead of making vague generalized accusations, why don't you offer evidence of a textbook that is inaccurate. Then I'll address it,

According to the National Center for Science Education, Wilder-Smith's 1981 work The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution contains a variety of falsehoods and errors. Kenneth Christiansen, Professor of Biology at Grinnell College, reviewed the book stating "the most fundamental flaw of the book is an apparent confusion or ignorance (it is hard to tell) concerning our present understanding of the evolutionary process." He further noted that Wilder-Smith's work disregarded basic literature in the field discussed.

I can provide a much larger list of scientists that completely accept evolution. it is essentially all the rest of the scientists in the world. A list of names is not evidence of anything scientific. As I have pointed out to you before, the existence of dissent does not invalidate the preponderance of evidence. It never has and nevr will.

This list is even worse. There isn't a single accredited scientific organization on this list. It is a list of creationist and intelligent design advocacies! Look them up! I suspect your list of "scientists" work at the above. Do you have a list of published papers demonstrating Creationism in Science or Nature or any of the other scientific refereed journals? Self-published manuscripts have the scientific value of a blogger--essentially zero.

This is either remarkable ignorance of how science works or simple intransigence. I'm not sure whether your increasingly non-scientific arguments merit further discussion.

Good Lord, have we come to this? Will you accept nothing?

I'm willing to do it. But you have to be willing to show why you dismiss the thousands or so expert scientists with incontrovertible evidence that I'm going to list for you. How can you possibly dismiss that?

Here is what we will find. There are a lot of scientists like those on your list who are experts in some field, but not always in biology, zoology, palentology or related disciplines that are germane to evolution. Dr. Damadian may have invented the MRI, but he hasn't disproved evolution in the proper scientific manner. He'd get demolished by the experts.

There are also scientists that can discern between faith and science and believe wholeheartedly in each. What none of these folks can do, however, is to prove science wrong using faith or prove faith wrong using science. They simply allow the two to coexist without worrying about the contradictions.

I recommend this to you.