Evidence? Explain how this is since all of the conclusions of what is observed is subjective. Evidence in science is a repeatable, observable fact. Not psuedo-educated guesses. There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes.

There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes.

Just to clarify, I believe the original post was discussing a particular theory for explaining gravity, not gravities mere existence.

Evidence? Explain how this is since all of the conclusions of what is observed is subjective. Evidence in science is a repeatable, observable fact. Not psuedo-educated guesses. There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes.

Just to clarify, I believe the original post was discussing a particular theory for explaining gravity, not gravities mere existence.

Just to clarify, I believe the original post was discussing a particular theory for explaining gravity, not gravities mere existence.

Eljay you are an evolution Denier, Ive spent far too many hours explaining things to you to rehash it now.

However my statement is CORRECT. You are wrong. Evolution as a theory has far more testable facets then does gravity as a theory.

Correct!

I'm not an "evolution denier" - I just don't see there being enough "facts" to support the conjectures. From the presumption of dating (a scientific contradiction in and of itself) to the lack of ANY success in the laboratory to substanciate the suppositions.

For instance. In the original post - I don't disagree that an extremely old, unique fossel was discovered shedding light on perhaps a "new" - which is just another way of saying previously unknown, as there's nothing "new" about it, but to draw any conclusion as to how it fits in the order of man is what science fiction novels are created on. Where's the "science" in that?

I'm not an "evolution denier" - I just don't see there being enough "facts" to support the conjectures. From the presumption of dating (a scientific contradiction in and of itself) to the lack of ANY success in the laboratory to substanciate the suppositions.

For instance. In the original post - I don't disagree that an extremely old, unique fossel was discovered shedding light on perhaps a "new" - which is just another way of saying previously unknown, as there's nothing "new" about it, but to draw any conclusion as to how it fits in the order of man is what science fiction novels are created on. Where's the "science" in that?

I see all this as pretty simple to understand, for me.

I think "my god" made everything, universe et all.
Like everything else, God kept improving as he made "different things.
Thus I am related to EVERYTHING, even dirt; which I will go back to when I die.

Simple explanation that shows "my" relation to all planets, creatures & beings.

Just my humble thoughts.

God is a black woman and she is pissed off

I believe that God created everything too. I also believe in science.

Inherent contradiction.

because no one listens to her....

It's not a contradiction to me. There are Christian scientists, btw.

I think what he means is from a logic standpoint If god is a thing that can create and you state that god created everything, then this statement is self defeating unless you can propose a way something can not exist and create itself.

If god created everything extant then then that would include himself, if god does not exist then god did not create anything, if god created anything then god exists and did not create everything.

Make sense?

Inherent contradiction.

Might that not depend on which God we are talking about? The widely accepted 'bing bang' theory (or family of theories) for the origin of space/time itself is absolutely consistent with the existence of a supreme being that is outside of time and space. There is an extensive list of qualities we need NOT assume about this God: that she intervenes in her creation, that she planned for humans to evolve, that she listens to our prayers, etc etc.

Without projecting any particular qualities on the 'Creator', I see no reason that confidence in scientific conclusions would interfere with a faith in the existence of such a 'Creator'. Just as an example.