[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Evolutionary science provides a reasonable explanation for only the last thing you listed, "how amoebas evolve into men".

No, it doesn't.

It does not explain the other things you listed simply because it is not meant to explain such things.

How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed? It's ALL origins theory.

You are confusing religion which is designed to be an all-encompassing explanation with science which limits itself to explaining observations.

Ok, observations....like...current evolution? Like...the big bang? Like the fact no scientist has ever seen a star born? Like how a leg bone in the desert has been observed procreating and you can tell what color it's skin was and what it ate, based on a LEG bone???

True science limits itself to the scientific theory, which is observable, documentable, and repeatable. Therefore, any origins theory is NOT scientific since it does not qualify under any of those.

This is true; by the very nature of basing their findings on evidence scientists leave the foundations of their theories open to question.

Then tell me why this theory is CONSTANTLY treated as fact and MANY people have been blackballed for questioning it?

Evidence can be open to question, fraudulent, wrong... or even completely accurate. This is the strength of science and logic; we can examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing scientific principles significant credibility.

Unless these theories are proven wrong, but the ideas are still left in the textbooks and our children are indoctrinated in lies. When you attempt to point out that the idea in question is false, you're labeled as "one of those Creationist kooks" and not taken seriously.

Compare this to religion which bases their beliefs on faith;

I base my beliefs on a collection of manuscripts that have more fragments (over 25,000) that all say the same thing. It is historically and scientifically accurate, as far as anyone has been able to determine.

Because I was not there at the time those events occured, I have faith that those 25,000 fragments that have been compared to each other by the best scientific minds out there are true, accurate representations of the events as they occured. But I concede it's faith.

It is also faith to believe that the universe exploded from nothing, that non life arises from life, and that ANY life form can somehow magically evolve into another with all the interdependant working parts just happening to mutate all at once. That is faith too.

faith is not open to question at all.

Sure it is. Christians are called in the bible to have an answer for their faith.

Faith cannot be reasonably proved to be *anything* because it deliberately violates the requirements of reason. This is the fundamental weakness of religion; we cannot examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not.

Of course you can, and you should. You can have intellectual conversations about religions, and discuss all the different aspects of it. That's called philosophy. Determining correctness or "rightness" of these ideas is a matter of culture and perspective, but they can most certainly be discussed and not taken for granted.

This lends long-standing religious principles significant doubt.

I disagree (depending on the principles you would like to discuss).

This is not correct. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the methods of thinking between religious and scientific people

There are MANY scientists who were/are religious, and many of them are people that we hold up as "fathers" and "scholars" of their branches.

so it may be that a discussion of origins between two such people becomes two different discussions altogether.

Or, it can be that the evidence that we can observe can be interpreted in multiple ways that make reasonable sense, if you are willing to admit your interpretation could be wrong. It's all about your starting presuppositions.

However, origins can and is approached from a scientific angle frequently.

Not if one uses "observable, demonstratable and repeatable" as the basis of their theories.