Westwall and Drock continue to insist that what they KNOW is irrefutable, DESPITE the lack of evidence.
Wrong. We KNOW very little (comparatively), that's why we are allways looking. I have just shown you how every year we are presented with new facts that challenge the paradigm. Why do you insist on ignoring what I post? I have also posted evidence as has Loki that refutes your contention and you CHOOSE to ignore it. I am not responsible for your close mindedness. That's all on you.
What's truly sad is we are both creationists. I just understand that nature takes a lot longer to work her magic. You "believe" that God did everything in a few days, I "believe" that it took a hell of a lot longer. You remind me of the Albigensians who were hunted down and killed by the Spanish Inquisition because they argued about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. Imagine that. Entire regions of southern France were exterminated over that pithy a reason. That is the type of closed mindedness you are exibiting now.
There are several things I appreciate in your post, and agree with, but in the context of this thread, let me comment on the persecution of those one does not agree with.
That is exactly the case in the fields of science that deal with evolution. And, to some degree you can see it in this thread...present company excepted.
This scientist was subjected to, in Justice Thomas' words, a modern high-tech lynching.
Long, but worth reading:
I'll bold some parts in case you don't have the time.
a. Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.
b. the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.
c. Mr. Sternberg's future as a researcher is in jeopardy He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned . "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."
d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.
e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.
f. it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."
g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."
h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.
i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.
j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History. The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com
His example is exactly what I am speaking of and abhor. Any time a scientist is persecuted or attacked for a unwillingness to toe the party line it is wrong... from whichever side of the aisle you're on. Witness the persecution of meteorologists and climatologists who don't agree with AGW.
That's why extreme views on either side are in my opinion wrong. God, were He to exist would not be an extremist. God would be a builder (He did after all supposedly create the universe) he would appreciate the builders of this world. He would revile the destroyers.