i think that creationist are not looking at the time frames as well as they should... it almost a billion years just for the single celled organisms to combine, and another billion years for "advanced" life forms to evolve...we have been here about 100,000 years or so...

I am not a geneticist. Neither are you, that much is clear. But even if no such thing exists, ie we did not know about genes and could not pull apart the causal relationship between genes and heredity, we would still know evolution is correct if not how it occurs.

The evidence is overwhelming. Scientific criticism does not start at taking some highly resolved detail of a field such as genetics to refute evolution. No to refute evolution you need to find a bunny in the Cambrian layer. There are other ways, but my point is that your argument is an argument from ignorance, you do not understand how heredity works, and there for do not accept evolution as true despite no competing theories, and no falsification of evolution. That is irrational.

It illustrates a lack of understanding of how science works, and how the theory of evolution is supported.

So evolution does not beat the creationist viewpoint on the fossil record

Its must be great when you can just make up your own evidence.

No kidding.

I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses.

And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves.

Its must be great when you can just make up your own evidence.

Well I put forward some basic facts to explain my position, its your chance to respond with facts. Unfortunately sarcasm is not evidence. I really am interested in facts, the only reason i'm not a "creation through evolution" type christian is because when looking into evolution the evidence appears insufficient.

Sarcasm is all anyone ever gets here most of the time. Especially if you don't agree with them.

Most people who believe in evolution do so mostly out of faith in the opinions of other people. To really understand evolution requires a great deal of study.

The following is not a statement about evolution, its a statement about human beings: There are many intelligent, and comparatively well informed people who do not believe in evolution. There are some who not only lack belief in evolution, they have belief that evolution is wrong. They may be wrong, but they actually have good reason for being wrong.

If Howzit is completely sincere in everything he says here, then I think he is worthy of respect.

He is obviously coming from a creationist standpoint, and gives much indirect evidence for having been steeped in creationist discourse. The quality of that discourse has improved a great deal in the last decade (i think the internet is to thank, in wearing away at subcultural isolation), but it still leaves a great deal to be desired. The cherry picking in that community is pretty strong - and the thing about cherry picking is, when someone else does it for you, its very easy for you to miss it. No matter how smart you are, or how honest you are, it can be very hard to know just how bad the cherry picking is when you are in in community.

Any intelligent, honest person, lacking formal higher education in evolution, steeped in creationist discourse, might reasonable reach a rational, intelligent conclusion that evolution is most likely false.

I don't have the time to explore all of howzit criticisms. Not this month. If he is honest and sincere, he will eventually figure it out for himself.

We are all emotional, and we all have some tendency to prefer evidence that is more emotionally pleasing.

I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses.

Thanks for the conciliatory tone of your post.

Have you ever thought that some evolutionists have the emotional propensity not to believe in God? This could affect their interpretation of the facts.

Maybe if I am honest and sincere I will keep finding more scientific support for creationism? And on the other hand if you are honest and sincere this would require you to be objective too, evolutionists are very confident in their hypothesis, and often this confidence unfortunately leads to "tinted glasses".

I like to look at what the evolutionary scientists themselves are saying and use their own findings, you would be amazed what comes out from , for example, the fossil record. Scientists themselves admit the land surface was smaller during the early Cambrian, and large portions of previous oceans then became land surfaces. And yet they are committed to the view that lower layers are older, therefore oceanic trilobites definitely existed before land animals. The fossil evidence says no such thing concerning trilobites, the fossil evidence just confirms that oceans became land surfaces, therefore of course you would have oceanic sediment below land-based fossils in most cases, because most of the land surface was previously under water. And so the creation of the theoretical geologic column is not based on pure logic, but the propensity towards evolutionism. These same evolutionary assumptions are causing continuous misinterpretations of geologic layers. I prefer just to look at the facts. The facts are that certain extinct types did proliferate during certain past ages, but proliferation does not mean exclusivity as the "living fossils" that are increasingly found do indicate.

Geology is not a science based on evolutionary biology.

True! Evolutionary biology is a science based on geological observations.

the issue with some of the scientific details of evolution is the assumption that things have always and will always move at the same pace and in the same 'scientific' manner they do now,,,which is absolutely not provable,,,,

Your post makes false statements about geology based on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists don't set the dates and processes of strata, geologists do and have no bias toward biology.

Those that support the theory of evolutionist do generally interpret the geological layers according to a progression over time. Their interpretations are based on evolutionary assumptions that are not necessarily the most logical projection of the available data.

And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves.