What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn't actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven't you published it yet?
The burden of proof is really on you to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today. What evidence do you have?
The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.
I live in the same world, and I do not think like a machine. I think and speak like a scientist, because that is what years of college and work experience have taught me to do. It is true that scientists have their own special language; most professions do.
My sense is you and people like allmendream — myrmidons sent from DU to trouble the Christian citizens who frequent FreeRepublic — have blinders on their eyes and braces on their brains. It seems impossible that they should ever see the "big picture" of Reality in its fullness. Cognitively, they seem to function at the level of machines: They live in a world of two-value logic — a logic which can propound only two possible answers to any question: True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0.
I'm sorry, but it simply does not follow that because I am not a literal creationist that I am the sort of crazy-eyed lunatic who typically frequents sites like DU. Nor do I think that is true of allmendream. Furthermore, it is my experience that logic and fact are distinctly unwelcome in leftist circles, so the chances of me ever visiting DU are almost non-existent.
I must ask, why is it that you assume that being a scientist is incompatible with Christianity? As far as I can tell, the creation/evolution debate is not driven by scientists; it is driven by literalists who, for some reason, have decided that the entire basis of their faith is invalid if Genesis is not a literal account of the beginning of the universe, the earth, and life. Since scientists first showed hundreds of years ago that creation as portrayed in Genesis is not supported by scientific evidence, I have to wonder, what is the big deal? Why the attacks on biological sciences, when no branch of science supports a literal creationist view?
I would say it's not scientists who are stuck with the "0 or 1" mentality.
But this only tells me that you do not understand what Genesis 1 and 2 actually say. Truth rarely reduces to the "literal." Understanding requires more than that.
To my understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly match up to my knowledge and direct experience of this world.
So--you are now saying that you do not, in fact, believe that the creation account put forth in Genesis is a literal account of the beginning of life, the universe, and everything? Then why do you resist accepting that scientific concepts and theories are, in fact, based on empirical observation of the world around us?
eDM wrote: ‘What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn’t actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven’t you published it yet?’
Truthfully neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because you can not go back and repeat history. On a micro/natural adaptation level - yes - proven, confirmed and agreed on by both groups [see last link below].
eDM wrote: ‘The burden of proof is really on you [WHO? Which group claims the science is settled as fact?] to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today.’
Well what evidence do you [or evolution] have exDemMom to prove macro-evolution? Change from one kind into another has never been proven and zero missing links found.
If you have a love of truth no matter where it leads, integrity, and are open minded then maybe you could examine the creation interpretation of the same evidence and see how completely the puzzle pieces fit together in defense of the Bible.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html