Creation vs. Evolution is not a valid opposition.

I agree, Mr Jack, but the issue is much bigger than that.Creationists have set Evolution up as a 'straw dog' (is that the right term?) to present as the alternative to their views, so that they can persuade the ignorant with arguments like 'was your grandfather an ape?'. Presenting Creation as the only alternative to Evolution is part of this plot.But Creationism is against Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology, and every other branch of science. This is the real issue - 'Creationism versus Science'!Every time we accept the issue as 'Creationism versus Evolution', we have fallen into their trap, and they win. The very name of these forums supports the Creationist plot. But fortunately, the contents do not. Every branch of science has been presented here in opposition, and I can only take my hat off to the many contributors who have devoted hundreds of hours researching and posting to present the scientific stand.Mike.

But you are falling into their trap, Rock Hound!. One can just as easily say that Geology versus Genesis is a natural opposition, because Genesis says the world was created in six days. Similarly with Astronomy, or any other science that deals with ages of past time. Or Genetics, which has some of the strongest evidence supporting Evolution.But can you imagine a fundamentalist minister standing in his pulpit and denouncing Einstein and Relativity, because they hold that light took millions of years to reach us from distant galaxies? How receptive would his congregation be? Or denouncing Hutton and Lyell for their views on the age of Earth? Darwin is their whipping dog simply because they can twist it into a moral issue, about original sin.Mike

Hello Freethinker. I have just caught up with this topic. In your first post, you sayThe branches of science you mention are dominated by the traditions and doctrines created by a few individuals== Lyell, Darwin, Eddington etc.

​

When these men wrote their bibles they new nothing of DNA (which incidently cannot be created spontaneously). Lyell seems unaware of the formation of Mars which appears to have happened without the slow weathering action of water. Eddington does not seem to have performed any experiments in developing his atomic theory of stars.Do you know anything about the scientific method? Science is a process, not a dogma. It does not contain any 'bibles'. The afore-mentioned people made great advances in science, but none of them claimed that their work 'completed' that topic. Every scientrist knows his work will be further developed by others, or perhaps refuted and discarded by new research.Your comments abnout Mars and water seem to be refuted by the latest news from the Mars probes. Einstein also did not perform any experiments (except thought experiments), yet he made one of the greatest contributions to our understanding of motion, space and time. What is your point?Now in your last post, you say that you are quite happy to keep an open mind about the age of the universe. Do you also keep an open mind about fairies, flying saucers and unicorns? Does evidence play no part in your considerations?Mike.