while there are many good policeman around, the ones that are making the news are giving a good impression of what is going on around the country. being white, myself, I don't see it as much. however, talking to African Americans around me ( even some other whites) in the Tampa bay area, they see things very differently. Tampa is another example, one of many in America, where the police are known to use excessive force on a consistent basis. maybe small towns are an exception, but in big cities violent police are becoming far too common
yes, I believe we are. following comments on CNN, and other new sources like FOX I see a growing amount of racial hatred. blacks blaming whites, whites blaming blacks. instead of dealing with what's going on, everyone wants to blame everyone else and make excuses. football players standing up for rights. thousands marching across the country. police killing unarmed people. this has gotten way out of hand, and not much is being done. our government seems to want to throw this under the rug, and pretend like its not happening. well, it is and we have to face it before things really get out of hand.
the homosexual person who believes this is simply denying reality, just like an alcoholic who denies he is responsible for what he chooses to do. by using the word 'orientation' you seem to be using another word for thoughts, and it has already been scientifically proven that nothing can force a person to think a certain way. even in situations where a person is forcibly moved to believe something by outside forces, within that persons subconscious they have a strong tendency to deny whatever it is they are being forced to believe.
state of being is who you are based on your thoughts. the actions one takes is based on your thoughts and is the end result of your state of being. anyone can have a multitude of thoughts, some of which are not in our character but it is our choice whether or not to act upon them. so, in essence, what I am saying is choosing your orientation is no different than choosing what type of cereal you eat in the morning. we all wake up with choices to make every day and we can alter those choices accordingly. those choices can vary, even though we have preferences. the choices we make that lead to our actions are based on our state of being. actions are simply the revealing of what's inside, and what's inside we can choose or not choose to act upon.
well, he would have to keep them in character ( for a more realistic outcome) so morality is turned on. standard urban setting and criteria for victory would be to bring the other into submission
there are many things not covered as sins.....such as? also keep in mind, there are statutes listed in the Torah, that deal with " lesser sins."
chips over popcorn, chips over sweets....just give me the nacho cheese, baby!
according to my understanding, the two best places to look at in the Bible for your litmus test would be #1 exodus 20 and the Ten Commandments and #2 Matthew 5 where Jesus redefines them. also, in Galatians 5:16-26 Paul lists them.
....obeying your parents, not being harsh with your wife or children, listening to your boss at work ( whether they're looking or not), slander...you see, I grew up in the church and am fairly knowledgeable on the Bible. one thing is certain, whether you believe the Bible or not. there are some things that it is very clear on.
....not to mention anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliating, loving enemies, giving to the poor, worrying, judging others, repentance, blaspheming the holy Spirit, sleeping with prostitutes, being a lazy worker....
murder, stealing, adultery, lying, homosexuality, drinking alcohol, honesty in conducting business transactions to name a few.
whether or not you believe in the Bible, it is impossible to ignore how clear it is on many issues. on the different translations: many groups, such as Jehovah's Witness, have retranslated the Bible to fit their doctrines, which is what makes the KJV so unique. the KJV was not written to prove doctrines, but to make the Bible readable for ordinary people, as it was previously written and read in Latin.
the Bible is quite objective when it comes to dealing with morality. first of all, of course, there are the ten commandments. then, Moses presented the Israelites with lesser laws, or statutes, that go into great detail on how the Israelites were to treat each other. the Torah (1st five books) go into great detail on these things. proverbs, as well, goes into great detail on wisdom and what is foolishness. then, in the New Testament Jesus spends much time dealing with the sins of people, as do the apostles throughout the rest of the book. no, the Bible is very clear on things that are considered good and evil. perhaps you can provide an example to go by.
your retort only solidified my argument. the fact that the only news source that supports the GOP is Fox, does not negate the fact that Fox is biased toward Republicans. I believe you are an intelligent person, but I also believe that partisanship makes fools of intelligent people. it is a matter of you wanting to reinforce your partisan beliefs. p.s. I really don't care about my scores, or my comments being zeroed out. I speak my opinion fearlessly. I, in turn have no problem zeroing out your comments as well. :-)
then maybe you should have been more specific and clarify that in your argument. who is to blame, when the topic is not properly presented?:-)
outside influences can only affect our decisions. the notion that we are not responsible for what we do is absurd. in that case, take out every child molester from prison who was raped themselves and erase their record. they were only acting as outside influences shaped them, right?
I believe you may also be asking me about culturally following liberal or conservative paths. should he hold on to traditionalism, a conservative view, or advance as a society, a liberal view. I say both. they say one or the other. I have a feeling, though, that the powers that be will continue to push us into globalization, whether we like it or not. if you are a Bible believing man, sir, even the Bible supports this theory as in the last days the world will fall under one government, one state religion and one power. even if you are not, the U.N. already has a map set out for the world to be divided into 10 regions. it is inevitable.
other than that, what type of liberalism are you talking about? classical liberalism or social liberalism? what type of conservatism? liberal, conservative liberalism, libertarian, fiscal conservatism, national/traditional, cultural/social, religious or progressive conservatism?
we would have to further define what is conservative and what is liberal, I suppose. if you mean economically, I propose both. the last time both parties really negotiated on economics was during the term of Bill Clinton. he had a Republican Congress, and they worked together to find a solution. the result: the best US economy we have had in the last20 years. we actually were reducing the deficit and even had surplus. the last two presidents we have had have done no such thing.
it is the same with any business. how much, do you suppose, a cashier at McDonalds makes compared to the owner of the store? a pittance? how much do you suppose a Wal-Mart associate is making in comparison to the Walton family? or even the store manager? isn't that simple nature of economics
if I had to pick, I would say both contribute. not to mention personal experiences and relationships have a great deal to do with what influences people's decisions and opinions....even in a debate. :-)
both sides are hypocritical. republicans and democrats tell their followers what they want to hear, and from a perspective that makes them seem like the good guys. meanwhile, both sides are wheeling and dealing to bring the swing voters ( such as myself) onto their side. it's all about the votes. it's all about the money. the power. the prestige.
Clinton didn't rape Monica Lewinsky, nor was he accused of that. she was performing sexual favors for him. if you are accusing liberals of being bias, you are displaying your own bias as well
I believe our laws reflect what society defines as evil. if evil were subjective, how is it that there are things in this world that nearly everyone considers evil. as far as I know, every country in the world considers murder evil and punishable by law. illegally invading a country is considered 'evil' and part of international law. most governments of the world have unified to define what is acceptable in the world, and what is not. stealing to feed yourself may be subjective, but according to the law it is not.
gay people are like anybody else. if you don't feel comfortable being around somebody, there's no law written in the books that says you have to hang out with them. just don't think all gay people are alike. not all are flamboyant.
the assertion that they cannot help it or control it has been scientifically disproved. the Xq28 chromosome, like any gene, cannot completely control one's behavior. it can only affect it. it you can make one more likely to behave in a certain manner,such as affecting one's mood. however, genes cannot make someone gay, alcoholic or abusive.
they all think they're emperors. perhaps I am just the cynical one, perhaps the realistic one. Bush was no different. power gets to peoples heads. the President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. so we see.
What about the possibility that science can prove both? Both sides seem to have some evidence that can be proven scientifically.
I have a friend of mine from work who told me the very same thing.
So in essence what you are saying is that science proves both of them?
Would I act on the privilege of being able to kill someone. Well, I personally think that is what sets us apart from people like ISIS. we actually have a conscience, and I don't think I could live with my conscience on something like this, unless it was self defense. Unless you are a person who has experienced death, it is impossible to know how much it really does hurt when someone you know or love has died. Unless I or someone else was in danger I couldn't do it. Back in the day groups like the baldknobbers used to have free license to kill. they were vigilantes. It was quick, swift justice without the court system. it was all good until the baldknobbers started to just kill people at random, and for minor offenses. That would be the fatal flaw with that system.
No, I am not for obamacare, nor did I sign up for it. One thing Mr Gruber must realize, though, is that many of the bills that are passed in Congress are not even fully understood by the congressman who are passing them ( thanks to earmarks). how much less, then, does the American public know about them? The American public gets what they are fed through the media. And then, a great deal of it is passed by word of mouth. The American public does not have surveillance on our politicians, so how else are they supposed to know everything there is to know? you could say that they should pick better media sources. So where do they go? Writers from any media source will have some sort of bias, for the most part. I have even seen biased opinions from very notable sources, such as the WSJ. Also, most sites on the web are either far right or far left.Food for thought.
Oh yes. it's the memories that can help you to get through it, even though the memories still hurt. I feel for seniors. I really do. before my grandma passed away, I made sure and spent all the time that I could with her, as well as my wife. my suggestion to anyone who has a family member or loved one dying: spend every moment that you can with them. when they actually do pass away, you will have no regrets (hopefully). at the very least it can help you know that in the end you were there for them.
Thanks! Really enjoying it. I love to debate topics, so when I found this one it was very interesting to me. Especially in light of the fact that you can create your own debates. Really cool site.
It seems to be a non partisan report and I agree. Business seems to be doing well in my area too
Sorry. I forgot for a few minutes we are on a debate site, and not "dear Abby". It sounded kind of lame, huh?
I am laughing my f------ ass off!!!! Holy crap!!! Wow. That was probably the funniest thing I've seen you post on here, man. Lmfao
Absolutely yes. It is foolish to trust someone who is untrustworthy. Forgiveness is simply letting go of the anger toward that person ( and saving yourself a lot of stress). That doesn't mean you have to be buddy buddy with them so they can burn you again.
For those who do not know, GDP measures the national income + output of a nation's economy. In basic terms it compares what people earn compared to what they spent. It is an efficient way to gauge the size and health of an economy.
If you were to ask that after my divorce, I would have said hell yes. Should there be counseling from a weird lady wearing a strange rag on her head with a crystal ball? Hell yes. But in general, not really ( unless there are financial reasons involved). Just long enough to really get to know how they really are. If you're upfront and real at the start instead of phony, you can get a real idea of how compatible you are with that person, and if they're really the one for you. Yes, I've been divorced but since then had a successful marriage. You never really get to know everything about somebody until after you're married. Trust me on that one. That's Dr. Steve's advice for the day. I feel a bit mother Theresa-ish (LMAO). Did my daily good deed. Hope that helps.
Yes, politics are important. However, being fanatical for one side over the other, I believe, is pointless. Neither one seems to be doing what is best for this country. Republicans and democrats alike serve the interests of the lobbyists and those with big money. Greed has killed our political system.
Its worked for us against Russia! I agree with you. The USA has employed that very strategy.
Excellent points on not only the Iraq war ( which I was against) and obama care ( which I am also against). These last two presidents are rated the worst ever in several polls. whether or not that's true, who knows? Do you think both parties would be served well to simply avoid these two names? Do you think they will?
I believe there are many factors that go into these things. While young teenage minds are not fully developed, their capacity to reason is also underdeveloped. Video games may numb a young person's senses to death, but nothing more. Family dysfunction and mental disorders would play a far larger role in causing these catastrophes.
Why not? Why not make stricter laws for people receiving government benefits. Do people realize that if more than 50% of the country begins receiving welfare from the government, our system will collapse. Look that was happened in Greece. 60% of the country was receiving welfare-it's simple math. more money coming out of the government than is going into it. what is the latest number? something like 40 percent of Americans receiving some sort of government assistance? We are close to the threshold.
No way. unnecessary, total overkill and more waste of US tax dollars. We have a militarized police, the world's most powerful military and the world's most powerful intelligence and surveillance entity (NSA). Why on earth do we need 30,000 (the number congress voted for) drones flying over our heads? Our transition to a police state is becoming complete. Is it too late to move to Canada?
Do you think he realizes that or do you think he did it out of spite? Maybe he's just trying to cause a fight, or wait to post the correct response tonight?
Could you please explain why and expound on your opinion for us.
I think you are right indeed. However, several obstacles lay in the path of this idea. 1 with the way presidential elections go, there are no candidates who simply point to strengths. it is more about slandering the other person. 2 both parties not only would never allow a candidate like that to run, if a candidate came up like that from a third party, they would sue them to make sure they did not get put on the ballot. It's a novel idea. Perhaps I am just the eternal skeptic. Or perhaps just the eternal realist.
I don't want to get too far off topic here but my opinion on this is very clear. Our government, as a whole, top to bottom, is out of hand. I believe the system has failed miserably. When the majority of people lose faith in the system by continuously voting for who is the lesser evil, (because there is nobody actually good to vote for ) something is wrong. Something is broken. If the USA were a corporation, with our presidents as CEO'S, after trillion dollar debt and moral issues ( including lying to ` the board`) they would each have been fired before the end of their term.
Well, the response doesn't have to be based on these numbers. It just gives some food for thought. I like your point on unity. It does seem to me that congress and the executive branch are more divided than I have ever seen. ( Please note I am on neither side. It shows I picked Obama because I put my comment on that side first)
Yup! For me it was growing up in Pittsburgh, PA, Atari, playing Pac man and donkey Kong, star wars , smoking cigarettes ( ok I started early) and listening to early 80`s music ( the best!!!)
Lower approval rating is vital! I agree. And even though 41% is not all that great, hitting the 30`s is absolutely horrid. Wow, is all I can say. Good point. ( Please note I am on neither side. It shows I picked Obama because I commented on that side first)
According to the above numbers, Bush would be worse because: 1 no private sector jobs created ( in fact he lost them), 2 higher unemployment, 3 lower approval rating( favored by less people) 4 more government spending, and 5 higher federal deficit.
According to the above numbers, Obama would be worse because: 1 his employment population ratio (actual people working) is lower, 2 lower median household income,3 lower economic growth and 4 bigger increase in national debt.
Scipio is a good choice, but I'll have to go with Alexander the Great. How can you go against a guy whose last name is" the Great"? Just kidding. But he did conquer most of the known world! Deadliest warriors should have done a match between Scipio and Alexander. Would've been good.....
Perhaps we can do this again? I believe we both had a lot of valid points. Enough to make this the most popular debate on the site for awhile, huh? Anyways, I'm at work, have to go. Ttyl
Pretty cool. I'm up to 172 points after this debate. It's been fun and very challenging. You are a very good debater.
Well, we can only hope. It could be like a can of cyanide, too. :-)
The subjective opinion is I believe bias is involved in the findings of both creationists and evolutionists. Reasoning behind it: 1 even though the same evidence is there for both of them, they interpret it very differently on many issues, 2 assumptions are a major factor in determining scientific " fact". scientific equipment and theories are based in part on these assumptions. Assumptions are subject to human opinion. 3 human beings have a tendency to want to be right about things, especially when they believe very strongly about something. We all do it, to some degree or another. We slant information in our favor, or tend to focus only on the points that reinforce our positions. Every major subject from politics to religion is subject to this human behavior/flaw. Why not science? Science is not absolute, because the ones interpreting it are not flawless. Do we take conclusions at face value, or should we naturally question them? I say question them.
There are creationists who do believe in one land mass. I heard a few of them speaking at a convention for creationism. :-)
Paradox 44 .... I have presented enough logic of my own. It is illogical to assume human nature does not factor into this argument, as it would any other argument. It gives the impression that you are simply a radical evolutionist unable to come to grips with the possibility that science may not be as concrete as you thought.
If Mr. Bush was any indicator on " republicans not screwing it up,", we're doomed.
Sucks, huh? Maybe we should let animals rule. Atleast then the only reason we would kill each other is for food. Ok, maybe that's not such a good idea either. Hmmm
Can you are I go to every Christian or atheist and ask them their opinion on this? Of course not. both of our opinions on this are based on what we have observed in our lives, which are apparently from two different ends of the spectrum. No harm, no foul. no one is right or wrong, just agreeing to disagree. However, there is no way that you can convince me that scientific research is so flawless the bias cannot enter the picture. much scientific research fills in the blanks with assumptions. these are assumptions based on how the world operates now, when many things are variable. That, sir, leaves room for bias to affect equations.
It is not rebuttal that is necessary when we are dealing with subjective point of view. there is no rebuttal to a person's opinion, when the only facts that are being presented are other opinions. when we are stating what we believe people's intentions are, it is primarily objective and subjective. at the same token, I believe my statements have not been properly rebutted. the conversation at this point is simply become opinionated, and I believe that both sides have made valid points. it is impossible to validate the points on this part of the debate. It is simply two sides to a coin.
Scientific backing of a global flood does indeed have proof, and even some non creationist scientists have said so. Besides the fact that they have actually found the ark in the mountains of Turkey ( mount Ararat), and the fact that a global flood is mentioned in sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, hittite and hurrian literature, or the fact that river deltas began forming in about 3000 BC, or the fact that all written history, foundations of cities and family genealogies date back to 3000 years ago ( not long after the creation date given for the flood), there is the evidence of sea fossils above sea level and on high mountains, the rapid burial of plants and animals, rapidly deposited sediment layers over vast areas of land mass, sediment transported long distances, rapid or no erosion between strata, many strata lay down in rapid succession, the studies of underwater archaeologist Robert Ballard in the black sea finding shoreline 400 ft. underwater....there is more but I am out of time.
Creationists say that the land masses were together before the flood. They would not have had to cross an ocean to get to the ark. Secondly, the ark was 300 by 50 by 30 Cubits, or 459 by 75 by 44 feet= 1.54 million cubic ft., or the equivalent of 522 standard railroad stock cars. more than enough to be able to hold what it needed.
How could the creatures have survived? that is where you can not discount faith in God and its relative nature to creationism. according to the creationist, God sustains life, for he created it. the same principle that would apply to how Israel survived 40 years in the desert, the parting of the red sea, etc etc. This would have been a simple matter for God. To note: 7 clean animals each type were saved, for what would be known as "eatable" animals, or prey.
Where did the water come and go? Google....is there water underneath Earth's crust? Nature world news and USA TODAY, as well as other media sources reporting on the vast amounts of water under the crust. Simple enough, and not so flimsy wouldn't you think?
I'm so tired of republicans blaming everything on democrats. Election time is coming, apparently. Who can bash who the most, when both sides deserve their portion of the blame.
The Iraq war, which we should have never done to begin with, cost 1.7 trillion dollars plus 490 billion still owed in benefits to war veterans, which could also reach the trillions with interest. Not only should we have never been there, but the end result has been unfavorable as Iraq has now allied itself with Iran, regional enemy of U.S. policy. Disaster from the start. Perfect example of flawed U.S. foreign policy and waste of tax dollars. So before republicans go blaming all of our problems on the Democrats, remember that. Especially when the government spends 200 billion a year on actual welfare. Not to say democrats are innocent, or that republicans don't utilize welfare ( welfare programs don't shut down when the Republicans are in office, do they?).
there are few things I could put on that list, but I will try and pick one. I would say it is the fiscal irresponsibility of our government. From the outsourcing of jobs, to bail outs, to quantative easing, to double taxing, to spending billions of dollars on worthless wars, to mismanagement of seemingly every government program, to doubling the deficit ( which Bush did and Obama is well on the way to doing), to universal healthcare, to both sides blaming each other when it is the fault of both ....the list goes on and on. At second place would be the self made increase in power the government has given itself.
Yes, and failed miserably. I believe it shows that no matter the form of government chosen, if you allow greed and power into the picture it will become corrupt and fail. Eventually the only way our government will be able to hold power is by force. military force and/or economic force. The breakdown of our society has already begun, as well as the severing of confidence in our system. it is only a matter of time.
Caffeine helps.... but don't down a redbull. According to the previous survey, you'll get a one way ticket to `you know where`. I suppose I could have given a few less examples, but that would have defeated the purpose I think.
Your counter response is based on opinion and apparent bias, hurting the validity of your arguments. Your previous argument, in essence, was " this guy disagrees with the flood so we should believe in him!" My response:" there are others who believe in the flood. Why not believe them?" Your counter response:" they are just believing fairy tales. " so, in essence, your argument that some guy wrote a book so " we should believe him" is simply irrelevant. people have written books on both sides of the subject. It proves what? We spend a great deal of time in book stores and libraries? Surely you can do better? I would expect more from a self-proclaimed debate master. :-)
It is not so black and white as to say that the evidence supports one side or another. Both sides have good arguments. Both sides have evidence and both sides seem to have reasonable arguments for why they believe what they believe.
The one with the most evidence? both sides have the evidence. is not the evidence that is in question, but the interpretation of that evidence. and that, sir, is Natalie subjective but based on many assumptions.
And yet these other methods can be challenged as well by creationists with the flood. the flood, if it had happened, would have changed the dynamics of almost everything and made any type of dating based on the way things are today, irrelevant. That, I believe, is why creationists pull so much to the flood. If the global flood did indeed occur, and they can prove it, evolution is doomed.
As far as atheists go, what about Pastafarianism? Many in the scientific community have embraced this mocking of religion, creation and intelligent design. To say that there is no bias among both sides, I believe, is to ignore the obvious. :-)
I must disagree, however, with your summation of the Christian opinion regarding this issue. when I was young I grew up in the church. My parents and a good deal of my family are Christians. they are part of a very large denomination known as the Assemblies of God. In fact, for a good deal of time my dad worked at their headquarters in Springfield Missouri, so I am very well aware of their doctrines and beliefs. The AG, along with the Baptists, Presbyterians and many other denominations hold very firmly to the creation belief. If you count Catholics as Christians, that percentage might change. However protestants, for the most part, do not consider Catholicism a part of Christianity......in summation, I still hold the opinion that the majority of "Christians" hold to the creation theory, while the majority of atheists hold to the evolution theory.
I did not intend to put much credibility in a survey. Surveys are useless for debate, really. It was simply meant to be a contemplative, subjective question. if we conducted a survey such as this in farm town Missouri, would we get the same results if it was taken in downtown New York city? Or would the answer vary by race or social class?or would the answer differ by country? Would it vary between Catholics and Protestants? I would say yes, as the Pope has said positive things about evolution but the Protestants are vehemently opposed to it. Anyway, just some thoughts.
Darwin's quotes regarding religion: you should read them. It may change your mind on the subject.
The scientific methods used require a great deal of assumptions to fill in the blanks. as I have gone through the different methods used by scientists, there is a lot they do not know. So, they must fill in the gaps with what they believe to be true. The perfect example is carbon 14 dating. if you go to the top, I gave a perfectly good explanation as to why carbon 14 dating is not accurate. It's an awful lot of information, too much for me to write again, so I will simply refer you to that post. To be certain the instruments must be calibrated by scientists to determine the age of fossils and rocks, and much of what is calibrated into the machine is based on the estimation of the scientists. Estimations, many of which are based on assumptions. Assumptions, based on evolutionary theory. How can you determine if something is true or not, when the cards are intentionally stacked in your favor?
You cannot deny that, in spite of the fact there are those in the middle, creation is used primarily by Christians and evolution by atheists, right? We are talking percentages here. If we took 10 Christians and 10 atheists, how many of each do you think would fit the bill? My money would be on atleast 60 to 70 %-
#1 the fact that Darwin started to believe in theology does not negate the fact that in the end he did not. #2 the point being evolution has a strong atheistic fan base, even among scientists. This opens the door for the possibility of bias in research. #3 I have seen the argument of evolution used in many debates against God. in fact there are several websites located on the web used for just such purposes. How can you say religion is not synchronous with creation? The Christian church uses it as a founding principle of their doctrines. The bible starts of with: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I don't see how the idea of creation cannot be synchronous with religion. ( no problem, I think I am making just as many typos LMAO)
That may be the case, but would you not agree that the concept of evolution was #1 created by an atheist (Darwin), #2 believed by the vast majority of atheists ( in spite of the fact that a small percentage do not),and #3 is used as an argument by many atheists against God and creation
I still firmly believe that is impossible to eliminate the possibility of bias from both sides. It is human nature to want to be right. this may affect one's actions consciously or subconsciously.
On the flip side of that coin, evolution may not disprove God, but creation would certainly disprove evolution. that is enough circumstantial evidence to present motive.
You don't think atheists are capable of bias? Human nature, I think, is human nature regardless of the package it comes in. everyone has their biases.
That's just it, though. I do not believe on either side of there is a lack of bias. Both sides want to be right. the simple fact that both sides accuse the other of misinformation shows a battle of propaganda is going on. I don't believe either side is genuine in their research.
I believe there should have been a third option for this debate. Creation, evolution and neither. Creation and evolution are more ideals than fact. One side believes in God, the other does not. Both creationism and evolution help reinforce each sides opinions. Creationism vs evolution is not so much a war of facts as it is a war of belief systems. I'll remember that next time I watch a show on history channel. This has been a very interesting debate.
The funny thing to me is that scientist say it takes millions of years for this process to happen, but humanity (obviously) has not been around long enough to know this as fact. This is just an objective thought regarding the matter, not necessarily a dispute. The evidence, according to both sides, is not the problem. it is the interpretation of that evidence. Christians obviously want creation to be true, whereas many atheists want evolution to be true. So, where do we think each side is going to lean the evidence towards? When each side comes out with something that the other does not understand, it will take time for the other to refute, reexamine and adapt. My guess is they will be arguing this issue for some time to come.
However, that is the explanation coming from the point of view of evolutionists whereas the flood perfectly explains the same phenomenon. one thing I have noticed, as I have studied both sides of this debate, is that the "evidence" that each side has is defined by each side according to what fits best for them. this is a perfect example.I am readily coming to the conclusion that neither creation nor evolution is provable by science, because #1 there are far too many assumptions that have to be determined, #2 there are too many invariables they can only be explained by assumption leaving us with too much human opinion and bias to take it as concrete fact. most of us believe that evolution is true, because that is what we were told in school and on television programs. However, the case can be made for creation as well with just as much relevance as evolution. that is my humble opinion, based on what I have seen so far. you said at the top of this that science proves nothing, and I believe I am beginning to agree with you.
And yet when you Google " evidence for the flood", or " evidence for the flood of Genesis" there are more sites there than you can imagine, including one that shows evidence at the Smithsonian.
