I agree...you must posit a viable alternative to disprove theory. My point is that evolutionists have not yet proven their theory...therefore, it is no more valid...or invalid than any other.
The fact that we are all here, simply proves that something did happen. No one is disagreeing here. The issue at hand is "how?" Faith, by definition is not a uniquely religious word. It is simply that act of choosing to believe something you cannot prove...or as I said before, something that you have decided the evidence is compelling for . (for you)
Science for all of it's rhetoric, takes leaps of faith all the time. They do it every time they have to try to put things together going backward in time. One minor point, I will differ with you on the definition of the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is a theory or guess as to how the interaction of variables within an experiment will turn out. You then run the experiment repeatedly in a controlled environment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The point I raise here is that science cannot go back and run creation repeatedly to see if they get consistent results. In fact, the results we do have are consistently inconsistent. That's why it's called the
theory of evolution. (something we both agree upon)
Currently, the hypothesis is that evolution took place in fits and starts. This conclusion was arrived at because the fossil record did not support a gradual evolution as had been assumed by the majority of the scientific community since Darwin. I have no problem with this new hypothesis...other than that it is an effort to "backward interpret" something that we cannot either confirm or deny with futher study.
Tyson...I was not singling you out in my comments about ungracious behavior. This obviously is an issue that you have not only well formed opinions about...but also fairly strong feelings. There were, however, those who never really engaged the heart of the question, but who consistently ranged in their responses from argumentative to rude.
Maxwalrath..."all thinking people know how old the earth is"
Wow! Really
I say this tongue in cheek because the data is quite conflicting here as well. One example would be human footprints and dinosaur prints on the same sandstone strata although for years it has been common wisdom that homo sapiens as we now know him did not exist until "millions" of years after that particular dinosaur was extinct.
Another example from the world of geology. Based on the speed of erosion that currently takes places in North America, the Rocky Mountains can't be more than 6-8,000 years old because using the currently accepted formula's for dating such things, if the mountains were as old as carbon dating says they are, they would already be "flat". A point of clarification here...I'm not saying that's how old they are, just pointing out that using the very formulas that geologists used, results that are inconsistent with their theories are found.
That's my story...and I'm stickin' to it.
Bob
