Evolution v Creationism

[Askthepizzaguy]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Perhaps he was saying that. I honestly got lost somewhere in the middle of it all. Maybe you could translate for me.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong.

Or, perhaps not.

Also ATPG, please do not attack Christianity, especially when you don't understand the basics of the religion. You can hardly hope to understand it by reading the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

Where was I attacking Christianity?

Even if I were, if Christianity is allowed to attack that which it disagrees with (i.e. condemning people to hell for not accepting Jesus) I can criticize it all day long under the rules of a fair argument and, by the way, freedom of speech.

And I would be delighted to tell you how I really feel about religion. I've been pulling my punches to be civil and productive...

Excellent post ATPG.

Many thanks! Sometimes I get drowned in posts from my critics, I almost forget some people agree with me on stuff. The support is much appreciated.