[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Thats true it should also include the Darwinian theory of evolution which teaches everything was just random chance.

That's part of the problem. The Theory of Evolution does not teach anything. It is an attempt to explain what we see in nature. As for random chance, this should help a little.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...ptions_faq.php

In my opinion the greatest self revelation of a Creator is the creation It brought into being.

Opinions are great, and you may be right, but I have yet to see any evidence for the existence of any kind of creator. Calling the universe "creation" doesn't make it so. This is what caused my loss of faith.

the creation of the universe perfect for life,

But the universe is not perfect for life. We can't survive on 90% of our own planet, let alone any others we are only vaguely aware of. And none of this proves the universe was created. There is nothing in nature to indicate this other than our wanting it to be so.

and the formation of sentient life able to experience the wonders of love, joy, and compassion, but built of combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons that have not the vaguest hint of sentience within their structures. Life and consciousness emerged from non living matter. But how?

So far no one knows for sure. That's why we keep exploring and investigating.

Science posits that the big bang was the beginning of time and space.

Not really. Scientists posit a great variety of things, but so far those really are just speculations. The only thing the Big Bang tells us is that the universe started expanding 13.8 billion years ago. What started it? What came before it? How did it happen? Why? The "whats" are educated guesses, based on what we do currently know about how things work. The "hows" and "why"s are open to debate. God? Chance? Who knows?

And today's science agrees with those desert sheep herders who wrote in a book 4,000 years ago that it did “In the beginning...”

You keep saying that. I want to know exactly what "today's science" has to say about that. Or "NASA" as you quoted earlier.

It also speaks of man being created.

Where? Nothing in today's scientific research indicates anything of the kind, one way or the other. If it did it would be front-page news.

Admittedly neither Darwinism nor Intelligent Design have proved how that happened or by whom.

The first is because the Theory of Evolution has nothing at all to do with how anything came to be. It is solely about how life changes over the millennia. Intelligent Design starts from the belief that everything was created, but can provide no proof of that or even real evidence.

Darwinism and neo-Darwinism espouse that we evolved by random selection. But is it really possible we are here by chance? The late Dr. Robley D. Evans urged, always repeat in summary what you have just espoused. Consider the string of assumptions for which supporting data, if any, are vanishingly scant in an unguided random chance world.

You keep quoting people's opinions as if they constitute fact, and attempting to use that as an argument. This is called the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

As for it being possible that we are here by chance, the odds are also very much against us having this discussion today, considering all the decisions that take place in a lifetime. Yet here we are. The same is true of the universe. People can talk about probabilities all they like, but once something happens the odds are suddenly 1-to-0. We don't know if it's possible or not, and attempting to use probability to argue for or against something may sway some, but more often it's the other way around - the arguer already believes it so any argument is justified.

Darwinism simply ignores the statistical unrealistic possibility that the fabrication of viable proteins could have occurred by unguided random mutation. That life developed from the simple to the complex is, in opinion, a certainty. What drove that development is the central debate.

You keep saying "Darwinism" as if it's a group collective thing. Thousands of scientists working in the field of Evolution have thousands of differing opinions. It's easy to lump them all together, but they are not a collective mind. As for statistical probabilities, as I've tried to point out while on the whole they can be useful in determining trends they don't prove anything at all.

Not withstanding the article “Did Darwin Get It Right?” in the peer reviewed science journal, Science, maintains he didn't.

First, you need to be more precise in your labels. Did Darwin Get It Right? is the title of a book subtitled Catholics and the Theory of Evolution. The title of the article you reference is Did Darwin get it ALL Right? (Caps are mine) Here is the article itself, and it doesn't maintain that Darwin didn't get it right, as you state, but that he was wrong in one very specific area. Yes, it's peer-reviewed, but using that label to support your argument isn't helpful when you misrepresent the article itself, and its meaning.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5203/1421

Some here may or may not agree but I think we can thank lawyers and judges not science to continue the argument that only Darwin's version of evolution can be taught in our schools.

As as been said repeatedly, Evolution may or may not be right but it is science. Intelligent Design starts from a belief and attempts to use science to support itself. It's not even a theory. Whether you believe as they do is irrelevant. ID at its core is nothing more than an attempt to have someone's religion taught in schools as "science".

As witnessed here at Subsim they attack ones personal beliefs and character rather than look at the data.

No need to be coy, you're talking about me. I would argue that I haven't attacked your beliefs, but rather those of the people who push ID as "science". I also don't believe I've attacked your character, but rather your manner of "discussion". As I said, you started this with derision rather than discussion. I even answered you query (as mocking as your tone was) on the dates for the African migrations, and you never even addressed that. Instead you launched directly into a tirade against "Evolutionists", complete with ROTF smileys and Dick Tracy Decoder Ring insults. Is pointing that out "attacking your character"? If so, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

As for "the data", what you've presented so far has been negligible. As I've also pointed out, it's pretty standard Creationist fare to assume that if you can show just one flaw in "Darwinism" then of course what you espouse must be the answer. This works because Evolution, like any science, is not perfect. Nor is it complete, and likely never will be. The alternative you offer, however, relies on the conviction that something we can't see, taste, touch, feel, hear or sense yet is somehow intelligent made it all happen. That "Theory" not only can't be proven, it can't be disproven for the simple reason that it can't be tested.

The game is rigged in such a way that you are fed from your earliest days the saga that unguided random mutations produced life, then arguing from the major to the minor, certainly, you believe Hawking's untruth that monkeys banging away on typewriters could with time produce sonnets!

Again, look before you leap. First, you didn't mean Stephen Hawking but Richard Dawkins. Second, he only quoted the old saying. It originated at least one hundred and fifty years ago, old enough to be misatributed to Thomas Huxley. And no, I don't believe it. But then I don't believe anything.

Instead of the straw man argument that because a scientist is religious or has personal beliefs his research, mathematics, micro biology and DNA research isn't science.

Not a straw man at all. Scientists personal beliefs do not usually affect their work, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who discovered the so-called soft tissue samples in dinosaur bones, describes herself as a devout Christian, who also believes in a very old Earth. The problem I have is when that personal belief drives an agenda, as with Michael Behe. You talked about lawyers and judges, but it was a lawyer who got Behe to admit that the sole evidence he could actually provide for ID was "It looks designed to me."

Whats the verdict? Neither Darwin nor Intelligent design knows I can dismiss either one as neither can prove their theory.

Again you try to be dismissive by using "Darwin" rather than Evolution. I don't here you using "Johnsonitsts" or "Thaxonists" when describing ID proponents. Hence, you show a definite bias. There's nothing wrong with that, except when that bias drives your whole argument.

As for me I just have my personal beliefs which isn't even enough to get a free cup of coffee around here.

Personal beliefs are fine when you discuss them. When you start of blatantly attacking an entire field of endeavor and openly mocking people who work in that field? That's when you get an argument. If your argument was openly hostile from the start you can't complain when people reply in kind.