[winewood]

Alchemy, I am going to have fun at your expense. Please forgive me. I am not attacking the messenger, but the arguement. In doing so, I wish to show you that possibly there are fallacies in everyones arguements, including your own.

Further, wiring ones' mind to accept arguments on blind faith seems to me like the opening of port 21 in the mind - even on the hypothesis that everything regarding ones' faith is true, to use blind faith as a mechanism makes one vunderable to exploit.

Lets pretend that whomever wrote the Bible had "higher understandings" beyond our own. As a father would instruct a child, he would not tell the 1 year old WHY the road was off limits, just to stay off of it. The understanding of why comes later. I personally don't think humans are any smarter than thousands of years before we have just been able to keep better records and build on it. So far, we have not been able to find a substantial logical fallacy with the Bible, but still hold it in high regard as one of the most hardened volumes of morality and logic to our criticisms.
Faith in this regard is acceptance that the road that we should not venture out into is in fact not in our best interests. If we have that for no other reason than we haven't been led astray or can find no holes in the fabric of the arguement, this is a scientific principle of the theory. Test it until we find it is false. I have tested and therefore find it a working theory that has yet to be disproven. Do I have blind faith? Not at all, it is based on what I cannot disprove, and have already seen

Next is a series of arguements from your previous post. And yes, I want my cookie as well.

when people claim that evolution is false because there are no creatures halfway between one species and another, I'm at a loss: All creatures people find evidence of existing are ascribed a species name. Trying to pick two species and find a transition species between them that is not itself its own species is an absurdity of the definition of species - it's like being asked to pick two rational numbers between which no numbers exist. Biology, like the number line, is a continuum.

Funny stuff. Thats so Clintonesque. When a large portion of the theory involves 2 creatures VASTLY different and tells us how many thousands and millions of years in between evolved to get there, but there are no fossils or proof of those "drawn in" figures, doesn't that seem absurd? From fish to salamander, there would be thousands of transistions VERY much like the former or the latter. There are large gaps in between these and thousands of years of their existance involving thousands of simple changes in each step. Logically you cannot explain away the transitional periods that are voids now, as a labeled step. I feel like that arguement is the Wizard of OZ saying disregard the steps of my theory, don't question them.

that mutations occur and once in a while are beneficial

Science has documented no example of a benificial mutation. Each mutation catalouged has resulted in a less functional animal for its environment. Especially a mutation that can be carried along genetically to a following generation.

Consider how foolish people appear when such concepts of heat and temperature are argued on this board. Then consider that the mechanisms for heat transfer, especially turbulent, are a thousand times less predictable and less understood by physics than the evolutionary path of tens of thousands of creatures charted by biology.

You are using apples and oranges. First of all, the heat, temperature can be argued but tested by multiple independent people. The biology, which outside of dna research on the creatures 10's of thousands of years old is limited to a very defined set group who attempts to make the best hypothesis based on bones, without an understanding of skin, internal organs. A series of "facts" creating other "facts" based on supposition of function to begin with. Color me amused indeed. Lets extrapolate on that idea and say the biology is more misunderstood than the thermodynamics of heat transfer of a core to a block.

In the case of the first cell, possibly the predecessor to the first bacteria, this support structure isn't anywhere near as obvious.

Not obvious means not discovered, but a theory hangs on it. Ok. Does this seem funny at all? The basis fundamental building block of evolution is now gone. Non-existant. Non-proveable, non-disprovable because it has yet to be discovered? Kind of like building a skyscraper but finding out the foundation no longer exists, but is not unproveable or is now missing or never built. Apparently faith is not confined to religion but now science? I think this shows why evolution is included in a religious arguement due to its reliance on blind answers built on conjecture.

I would now start to argue who has the most faith. I know I am not going to change any of your ideas or faiths, however it seems ironic to point the "blind faith" finger at the religions without accepting that the premise of many of your own scientific higher logics contain more faith in some circumstances. Face it, man is ignorant and very succeptable to persuasion. What we KNOW one day is completely dismissed in another generation of science. Shakey foundations indeed. Higher scientific logic or psychology in the place of religion is interesting, but a laughable arrogant swap.