Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
All above you wrote I was expecting exactly what you said *heh* even trying to push 'what about all the others' when I mentioned "lucy" ... and the reason why is to further show my main point: It is a belief, yours. My own is a belief, mine. any one else who believes differently is also a belief..
Going to ignore your haughty attitude here and discuss the actual science. So, what about all of the other fossil findings? There have been numerous fossils discovered which have both human and ape characteristics. How do you explain this?

No finding, no matter what is found will ever change that, only add something to further be proven or disproven... even when proven if proven will still do just as much good as if it weren't in the first place. Like the boat on the mountain... (and by the way there's video evidence showing it) even if it's in plain sight it does not prove there was a world-wide flood. It depends on belief. Some believe so, others believe not.
Care to link to that video?
Also, no, you're not understanding how the scientific process works and what conclusions can be drawn from what evidence. A boat on a mountain shows that a boat somehow got on a mountain. It does not prove that there was a worldwide flood because there are dozens of other explanations for how it might have gotten up there, assuming it even is an intact boat, and no such thing has ever been found. Only scraps of wood and blurry images that supposedly look like boats but are all in different places.
However, fossils showing features of two distinct species, based on the knowledge that animals do evolve and that evolution can provide morphological changes, can be reasonably concluded as being transitional between those two species.

Exactly, they both are and are not proof that God exists, just as much as the fossil record are and are not proof of evolution. What's there is there, and what's left is belief.
There is purposely no evidence of God's existence, because otherwise there'd be no faith. Trust in what cannot be seen or proven is why they call it that.
Something cannot be proof and not proof that something exists at the same time. That doesn't make any logical sense.

*heh* I notice you are trying to further go into your supposedly being the one victim rather than the challenger. It never was my intent to make any relation to biology nor history of life.
I'm not trying to be the victim. I'm trying to discuss evolution, which you seem to really not want to do. You're avoiding discussing the actual science, and instead trying to create an elaborate theory that I'm trying to push my beliefs on everyone without ever bothering to explain why you think evolution is just a belief.
And if you had no intention of discussing biology or the history of life, why are you even bothering to discuss this at all? If you want to discuss evolution, you need to talk about biology. You need to talk about science.

What I'm going on about is not to even prove my beliefs either. Simply my thoughts that if no belief should be taught in school then neither should the belief of evolution ... whereas the facts I have no problem with like I said.
The difference from belief and fact is simply what is around us and exists, (like bugs and gravity) can be factual, and can be studied.
However, what is not around today and cannot be proven, is only based on belief.
You still have not explained why you think evolution is only a belief. Especially since it is still around today and can be studied.
Also, plenty of science is based on study of artifacts from the past. Do you think all those fields are also just belief? So you disregard all of archaeology, paleontology, and geology, as just belief and not real science? Should schools stop teaching about dinosaurs because that's "just a belief?"

No, I have, you've just further sank yourself into the whole of what you believe. As well as your arrogance of it. I know exactly what Scientology is, and I know that you wouldn't believe it. It has no connection with the belief of evolution, and nor does the study of gravity have anything to do with evolution being taught in school.
If you knew what Scientology was, and knew it had nothing to do with evolution, why did you even bring it up? How is it at all remotely relevant to this discussion?

There you go again with your "if only you knew" BS
I find it hilarious that you're spending so much time calling me arrogant and close-minded, when I have made every effort to try to explain things calmly and discuss actual factual points with you, and offered time and time again for you to explain what scientific problems you have with the theory. If I were arrogant and close-minded and only interested in shoving my beliefs down the throats of others, I wouldn't want to hear a word you had to say in opposition to my view. Yet I am encouraging you to share your view. So please kindly stop making assumptions about my motives and about what I've studied and start actually discussing the topic at hand. The fact that you are so insistent that evolution is just a belief, but have refused to provide me your problems with the science behind it is really hurting your argument and doing damage to your claims that you understand the theory very well.

None of my arguments have contained any criticisms of the scientific concepts involved in evolution, simply because it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
You came in here to discuss why you don't think evolution should be taught in schools. I think it should because it's valid science. If you want to argue that point, you need to explain why it's not valid science. If you have nothing to say on the subject, then why are you even bothering to discuss this in the first place?

What I'm saying is the belief of evolution is and ever only will be a belief, while you try to argument 'the belief of evolution is fact' or to further say 'whatever you believe is fact and everyone should listen to you. Why? Cause we have gravity!'
Either you're not even really reading my posts, or you're insecure about debating with me so you feel the need to strawman my argument into something stupid and easily dismissable...because that's exactly what you just did. I never once said "evolution is a fact because we have gravity." I have explained that analogy over and over again, another person clearly understood it and tried explaining it to you with their own words, so if you still don't get it, I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it any more clear. If you did understand it, then you know that I am not claiming evolution must be true because we have gravity and it is therefore a poor and desperate debate tactic on your part to say so. Nor did I EVER say "Everything I believe is fact so everyone should listen to me!" It's not a good idea to twist your opponent's words or outright make up things I supposedly said when you're involved in a typed debate when anyone can easily go back and read what I actually said. If you can't debate this maturely then this isn't going to go anywhere.

Now you're asking for proof that I'm 'well read' on the study of evolution?
Yes. I am. Because I honestly don't believe it. You have yet to discuss anything relating to the actual science of the theory which is causing me to doubt that your problems with it actually have anything to do with the science at all. I suspect you're simply afraid it might mean your religion has holes and therefore will continue to insist that it is false without bothering to study it. Want to prove me wrong? Start talking about the actual science. Start actually discussing evolution. I'm no mod obviously, but aren't threads on this forum supposed to stay on-topic? If you're going to discuss things in this thread, shouldn't you actually try discussing evolution? Since that's what this thread is about? You cannot argue that evolution should not be taught in schools without actually discussing evolution. If you don't want to talk about evolution, then maybe you shouldn't be debating in this thread, since that's what this thread is about.


Continued below because I passed the word limit...