[MamaTexan]

Science supports claims with evidence

Then where is the evidence that the beginning of life on Earth was an accident?

-------

however even with extensive compelling evidence validating a theory, scientific claims are always subject to change should contradictory evidence suddenly arise.

How much evidence is required by the scientific community before it's considered 'compelling' or 'contradictory'?

IMHO, however true Darwin's theory is that the natural world evolves over time, I'm just not willing to forgo my innate beliefs and awe for the complexity of life on the say so of an amateur naturalist on a cruise.

-------

Creationism relies on no evidence at all, and many of its proponents insist that no amount of real-world observations will make them change their views.

Yep... It's called faith.

[Dimensio]

Then where is the evidence that the beginning of life on Earth was an accident?

There is no current theory regarding the beginning of life on Earth. I was discussing the theory of evolution, which makes no statement whatsoever as to how the first life forms came to exist.

How much evidence is required by the scientific community before it's considered 'compelling' or 'contradictory'?

When the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields of study find the theory plausable based upon evidence, that's compelling. Contradictory is easier: when an observation is made that the theory predicts should never occur, the theory has been contradicted.

IMHO, however true Darwin's theory is that the natural world evolves over time,

Darwin's theory addresses species diversification. It covers biological life forms. It says nothing about the rest of the world.

[Elsie]

Slow DOWN!

Y'all are postin' fastern I can reed!