Hello everyone!

Hello Archer! I love your "screen name". I spent more than one discussion with an evo trying to convince him that the archaeopterix was a desperate hoax in a last-ditch effort to continue to attempt to prop up a disintigrating theory. LOL. I know how ludicrous this sounds, but I really felt like I had a grip on science. I see the literalists debating here and sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. No matter how many well-prepared and precisely-delivered lists of evidence for evolution and an old Earth are presented, they just throw out a new turn of phrase, or another variant in their long list of rhetorical objections, and leave feeling as if they have adequately defended the faith.I have said this before, but I find this misunderstanding of science and what is required to defend an opinion or theory somewhat disturbing. And in my opinion, and I may be wrong here, but I really think that this lack of skill in supporting what they believe with solid evidence stems from their years of "Bible study". There are many, many differences of opinion in the church, and Bible scholars have spent two millenia splitting doctrinal hairs. And that is exactly how the debating occurs. All with the presupposition that the one Book is the principle source of truth and fountain of wisdom. Secondary sources are cool too, if they don't conflict with the Book. But there is no real field research, no real and substantial gathering of verifiable evidences. One doctrine is deemed more valid than another by an individual if he/she finds more favorable supporting verses from the SAME Book. And in many of these ongoing, unresolved doctrinal disputes (Which will never be resolved due to lack of clarity in this one Book), the one who comes across as "the winner" is not necessarily the one with the truth, but the one who is the better debater. And here is where men like Ken Hovind, and Ken Ham and their ilk come into the picture. They debate science in the same way that they debate the Scriptures: the winner is the one who can turn the cleverest phrase; it's not about verifiable and reproducible results, it's about verbal gymnastics. And many of the literalists have fallen into line, and come and debate here with the same shoot-from-the-hip style.Sorry for the endless monologue, but I feel strongly about this, and wish that some of them would begin to understand "evidence" in the way the true scientist understands it.Once again let me say that I mean no disrespect to the Creationists on a personal level. I really do respect your faith.Thanks for letting me rant.