Atheism is also faith based

[Pilgrim]

Does not the atheist also believe? If he believes something, then must he not have faith that what he believes is true? Creationists believe and therefore have a faith that the Creator created alll things. Evolutionists also believe. Some believe that energy and matter are the origin of all things. The point is simply that when something is believed, faith is required.
Pilgrim

[solidsquid]

Pilgrim said:

Does not the atheist also believe? If he believes something, then must he not have faith that what he believes is true? Creationists believe and therefore have a faith that the Creator created alll things. Evolutionists also believe. Some believe that energy and matter are the origin of all things. The point is simply that when something is believed, faith is required.
Pilgrim

Equivocation - word: "belief".

Evolutionists, as you call them have empirical support for their claims. Many verified time and time again. Creationists have scripture.

[Pilgrim]

Theists believe something to be true about origins. Similarly, atheists also believe something about origins. This requires faith on the part of both theists and atheists.

Evolutionists think they have empirical support. Without even looking at the Bible, a creationist perspective can be seen in archaeology. It's an interpretive issue.

To believe that energy and matter evolved life as we know it, requires faith. To believe that energy and matter is eternally pre-existent requires faith.

[solidsquid]

Pilgrim said:

Theists believe something to be true about origins. Similarly, atheists also believe something about origins. This requires faith on the part of both theists and atheists.

Evolutionists think they have empirical support. Without even looking at the Bible, a creationist perspective can be seen in archaeology. It's an interpretive issue.

Citations on that archaeological backing please. Also evolutionary theory does not deal with origins of life, you would be wanting to address abiogenesis and other competing theories.

Also: equivocation, again "belief" and "true" both have different meanings withing the context of colloquial usage and religious context.

To believe that energy and matter evolved life as we know it, requires faith. To believe that energy and matter is eternally pre-existent requires faith.

Again, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Equivocation - "evolution". The last sentence would be addressed to cosmologists, not "evolutionists".

[Pilgrim]

Not any archaeology at the site below however, geology, cosmology, paleantology, genetics all have something to say apart from the Bible.
www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html#8

Abiogenesis is necessarily part of the evolutionary theory. But I do agree with you that evolution is a theory.

"When abiogenesis comes up in the course of creation/evolution debates, darwinists sometimes object that "abiogenesis is a non-issue, and has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution only occurs with already living things."
Not true. --There is a scientific term --"pre-biotic evolution"-- which concerns evolution of biochemicals leading up to the initial development of life.
And if abiogenesis is such a "non-issue," then why do Dawkins, Gould and many other major darwinists trouble themselves to explain how it must have happened?"
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html

I did not equate "belief" and "true". Some beliefs are true and some aren't. To believe something true or false both require faith. But when something is believed it is believed to be true. Some atheists believe that life came from energy and matter. They therefore believe it to be true.

Whether evolutionist or cosmologist, both would have a "belief" about how life began.

[godslayer]

Pilgrim said:

Does not the atheist also believe? If he believes something, then must he not have faith that what he believes is true? Creationists believe and therefore have a faith that the Creator created alll things. Evolutionists also believe. Some believe that energy and matter are the origin of all things. The point is simply that when something is believed, faith is required.
Pilgrim

no ,we do not believe in evolution
we KNOW it happens....we have KNOWLEDGE

no faith involved

faith in religion is beliving something as a fact without having any evidence for it (GOD)

evolution is a FACT ,how it happens is a THEORY..

www.visual-evolution.com/

www.talkreason.org/

[godslayer]

Pilgrim said:

Abiogenesis is necessarily part of the evolutionary theory.

no its not
abiogenesis is a about HOW life originated

try
www.talkorigins.org
or
www.infidels.org

[Pilgrim]

So evolution is a fact and how it happens is a theory??

How then did evolution become a "fact"?

[Enuffalready]

Pilgrim said:

So evolution is a fact and how it happens is a theory??

We KNOW that it happens. We THEORIZE about exactly how it occurs.

[solidsquid]

Pilgrim said:

Not any archaeology at the site below however, geology, cosmology, paleantology, genetics all have something to say apart from the Bible.
www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html#8

You're kidding right? This stuff is debunked by simple highschool geology texts. The citation of Gish further lends to it's non-credibility.

Abiogenesis is necessarily part of the evolutionary theory. But I do agree with you that evolution is a theory.

No it isn't. And yes evolution is a theory BUT don't mistake "theory' in the colloquial sense for a 'theory' in the scientific sense. They are two different things.

"When abiogenesis comes up in the course of creation/evolution debates, darwinists sometimes object that "abiogenesis is a non-issue, and has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution only occurs with already living things."
Not true. --There is a scientific term --"pre-biotic evolution"-- which concerns evolution of biochemicals leading up to the initial development of life.
And if abiogenesis is such a "non-issue," then why do Dawkins, Gould and many other major darwinists trouble themselves to explain how it must have happened?"
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html

Equivocation - "evolution"...sorry this is wrong. The fact that Dawkins and Gould and others debate upon it is a matter they wish to look into. The formal synthesis theory of evolution by definition does not delve into the origin of life...plus that statement is a fallacy as well. Try some scholarly resources to back up your claims next time.

I did not equate "belief" and "true".

I said equivocate not equate.

Some beliefs are true and some aren't. To believe something true or false both require faith.

Not necessarily. Is believing that water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms simple faith? For sematic clarity, please define the following terms: "faith", "belief" and "truth".

But when something is believed it is believed to be true. Some atheists believe that life came from energy and matter. They therefore believe it to be true.

Please restate more coherently, less vagueness would be appreciated.

Whether evolutionist or cosmologist, both would have a "belief" about how life began.

Which has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory BY DEFINITON. Comprende?

[solidsquid]

Pilgrim said:

So evolution is a fact and how it happens is a theory??

How then did evolution become a "fact"?

You should really understand something before you attack it Pilgrim (felt like John Wayne there for a second).

Go here and read up on some basics first:

www.1-2-free-forums.com/mf/77901-about54.html

[Pilgrim]

No they are not debunked by any high school textbook. It appears that the reason for such comments might be that Haeckel's erroneous drawings still appears in textbooks today.

"No it isn't. And yes evolution is a theory BUT don't mistake "theory' in the colloquial sense for a 'theory' in the scientific sense. They are two different things."

Whether speaking colloquially or scientifically a scientific theory isn't any more fact than a colloquial theory.

As I said, "I did not equate "belief" and "true". " Therefore I did not equivocate.

"Not necessarily. Is believing that water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms simple faith? For sematic clarity, please define the following terms: "faith", "belief" and "truth"."

"belief"- state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing - Merriam-Webster
"faith" - complete trust, something that is believed especially with strong conviction - Merriam-Webster
"truth" the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY - Merriam-Webster

If you didn't actually count the atoms, you trusted or had faith in someone other than yourself who gave you that information.

Previously I said, "But when something is believed it is believed to be true. Some atheists believe that life came from energy and matter. They therefore believe it to be true. "
Those who believe in the theory of evolution believe it to be true; they depend on various arguments presented by various scholars. Atheists believe. They believe that God does not exist, yet believe that life had a source. They have never seen or demonstrated how this life came to be yet propose and believe that this source of life was energy and matter. Have you met anyone who believes in the "theory" of evolution yet won't accept it as fact until it can be proven to be true?

You said, "Which has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory BY DEFINITON. Comprende?"

They still have a belief about how life began. - including the 'abiogenesists'. (differences about whether abiogenesis is part of evolution is not germane to this argument)

"You should really understand something before you attack it Pilgrim (felt like John Wayne there for a second).

Go here and read up on some basics first"

Comments as above are typical when evolution is criticized. How did the theory of evolution become a fact?

web.archive.org/web/20030926050035/www.geocities.com/acts_2_38_4_12/evo2_index.html

[solidsquid]

Pilgrim said:

No they are not debunked by any high school textbook. It appears that the reason for such comments might be that Haeckel's erroneous drawings still appears in textbooks today.

What textbooks are you reading? I have over ten of my own and none of them have Haeckel's drawings but photographs.

Whether speaking colloquially or scientifically a scientific theory isn't any more fact than a colloquial theory.

Yes it is. You obviously are ignorant of the scientific usage of the term.

The colloquial usage (from Dictionary.com):

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The scientific usage (from Dictionary.com):

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

As I said, "I did not equate "belief" and "true". " Therefore I did not equivocate.

One more time, equivocate does NOT mean equate. Equivocation is a logical fallacy in which someone uses a word in two different contexts, each of which the word will have different meaning, like you've done with the word "evolution".

"belief"- state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing - Merriam-Webster
"faith" - complete trust, something that is believed especially with strong conviction - Merriam-Webster
"truth" the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY - Merriam-Webster

I will take it to mean you agree with these definitions. Now, here's the conundrum. Faith in the religious sense means believing without verification, which is listed in Merriam-Webster's entry #2a:

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Again, you seem to switch (in your argumentation) between context specific definitions and conversational usage....this is again, equivocation.

Even with the definitions you provided, ToE doesn't require faith. If it is to be required, then you cannot utilize the definition you've provided but must default to the religious contextual definition of belief without verification.

If you didn't actually count the atoms, you trusted or had faith in someone other than yourself who gave you that information.

You have no understanding of how independent verification and self checking to insure accuracy works in science do you? Also, your point in this sentence has escaped me, are you asserting that I require faith (belief without verification) to believe that water is made of H2O?

Previously I said, "But when something is believed it is believed to be true. Some atheists believe that life came from energy and matter. They therefore believe it to be true. "
Those who believe in the theory of evolution believe it to be true; they depend on various arguments presented by various scholars. Atheists believe. They believe that God does not exist, yet believe that life had a source. They have never seen or demonstrated how this life came to be yet propose and believe that this source of life was energy and matter. Have you met anyone who believes in the "theory" of evolution yet won't accept it as fact until it can be proven to be true?

There goes that equivocation again. You are using terminology is a dynamic way, this is confusing not only you but me. You for some reason think all atheists positively assert a disbelief in god(s) which is not true. Agnostic atheists hold tentative conclusions much like scientists do. As more evidence may come to light that conclusion is flexible and may be amended to follow the evidence.

Regardless of whether someone believes anything, the evidence for ToE stands on it's own, independent of opinion. The data is objective.

You said, "Which has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory BY DEFINITON. Comprende?"

They still have a belief about how life began. - including the 'abiogenesists'. (differences about whether abiogenesis is part of evolution is not germane to this argument)

You began this thread as an attack on evolutionary theory. You have many misconceptions like that evolution encompasses the origin of life, which it DOES NOT. My belief, conclusions, et cetera have no bearing on whether evolution is verified or not.

One more time, for you evolution deals with life, not how it arose. Here is a formal definition of evolution:

evolution: the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next. (G-9)[1]

It is specifically because evolution makes no claims into the origin of life that many can hold evolution as verified and still hold their god-belief as well.

Discussed here as well:

1. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

2. Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:

* Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.
* Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.
* Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.
* President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

More than 3,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

3. Anyone worried about atheism should be more concerned about creationism. Creationism can lead to a crisis of faith when people discover that its claims are false and its tactics frequently dishonest. This has led some people to abandon religion altogether (Greene n.d.). It has led others to a qualitatively different understanding of Christianity (Morton 2000).

4. By saying that only one religious interpretation is correct and universal, creationism typically is a rejection of every other religious interpretation. For example, young-earth creationists reject the religious interpretation that the universe is more than 10,000 years old (Sarfati 2004), and design theorists reject the idea that God has guided evolution (Dembski 1996). For people whose beliefs about God differ from those of a creationist, that creationism might just as well be atheistic.

1. Clergy Letter Project. 2005. An open letter concerning religion and science. www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
2. Dembski, William A. 1996. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm
3. Greene, Todd S. n.d. My motivation. www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/motivation.html
4. Sarfati, Jonathan. 2004. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
5. Morton, Glenn R. 2000. The transformation of a Young-earth Creationist. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52(2): 81-83. home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm

"You should really understand something before you attack it Pilgrim (felt like John Wayne there for a second).

Go here and read up on some basics first"

Comments as above are typical when evolution is criticized. How did the theory of evolution become a fact?

Over 150 years of critical analysis and the addition of modern genetics into the modern synthesis theory all support the theory of descent with modification or change in allele frequencies over time.

web.archive.org/web/20030926050035/www.geocities.com/acts_2_38_4_12/evo2_index.html

Please tell me you didn't write that. Quite a collection of misinformation and half truths. Nice quote mines btw.

[Pilgrim]

Quote: "What textbooks are you reading? I have over ten of my own and none of them have Haeckel's drawings but photographs."

You used "but". So Haeckel's drawings do appear in your texts? Also, a search on the web easily generates examples of this fraud.

The scientific definition you have quoted does not unequivocally say that a theory becomes a fact. It states that it is a "prediction". 'Prediction' does not mean 'fact'. Haeckel's scientific theory led to a prediction, not a fact.

"The colloquial usage (from Dictionary.com):

Quote:An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The scientific usage (from Dictionary.com):

Quote:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "

Quote:As I said, "I did not equate "belief" and "true". " Therefore I did not equivocate.

"One more time, equivocate does NOT mean equate. Equivocation is a logical fallacy in which someone uses a word in two different contexts, each of which the word will have different meaning, like you've done with the word "evolution"."

I understood you to be saying way back that because I was not distinguishing between "belief" and "true". I was equivocating. I never did equate the two terms, therefore I was not illogical. I did not say that you meant "equate".

Quote:"belief"- state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing - Merriam-Webster
"faith" - complete trust, something that is believed especially with strong conviction - Merriam-Webster
"truth" the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY - Merriam-Webster

"I will take it to mean you agree with these definitions. Now, here's the conundrum. Faith in the religious sense means believing without verification, which is listed in Merriam-Webster's entry #2a:

Quote:2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust "

The definitions I presented are not exclusive to religion. It also requires faith to believe that you have the verification, religiously or scientifically.

"Even with the definitions you provided, ToE doesn't require faith. If it is to be required, then you cannot utilize the definition you've provided but must default to the religious contextual definition of belief without verification."

Is "ToE" to believe? Politically, religiously, scientifically, etc. People believe. People have faith. Faith and belief is contextual to all people regardless of the discipline. The mental excercise of believing and trusting happens to everyone regardless of the discipline. So no, I don't have to resort to some so-called religious definintion.

I had said, If you didn't actually count the atoms, you did trust or had faith in someone other than yourself who gave you that information.

"You have no understanding of how independent verification and self checking to insure accuracy works in science do you? Also, your point in this sentence has escaped me, are you asserting that I require faith (belief without verification) to believe that water is made of H2O?"

My point is that you have faith to believe that the 'verification' is true. As you know 'verifications' are revised.

Previously I said, But when something is believed it is believed to be true. Some atheists believe that life came from energy and matter. They therefore believe it to be true.
Those who believe in the theory of evolution believe it to be true; they depend on various arguments presented by various scholars. Atheists believe. They believe that God does not exist, yet believe that life had a source. They have never seen or demonstrated how this life came to be yet propose and believe that this source of life was energy and matter. Have you met anyone who believes in the "theory" of evolution yet won't accept it as fact until it can be proven to be true?

You said,"There goes that equivocation again. You are using terminology is a dynamic way, this is confusing not only you but me. You for some reason think all atheists positively assert a disbelief in god(s) which is not true. Agnostic atheists hold tentative conclusions much like scientists do. As more evidence may come to light that conclusion is flexible and may be amended to follow the evidence."

Please explain what you mean by a flexible conclusion?

Take Webster's again.Atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity". If one claims not to know if there is a god or not, then that person is said to be an agnostic. "Agnostic atheists" is an example of equivocation.

"Regardless of whether someone believes anything, the evidence for ToE stands on it's own, independent of opinion. The data is objective."

Data and interpretation of the data are entirely different matters. Evolution is an interpretation.

"You began this thread as an attack on evolutionary theory. You have many misconceptions like that evolution encompasses the origin of life, which it DOES NOT. My belief, conclusions, et cetera have no bearing on whether evolution is verified or not."

My thread did not begin the way you say it did.

"Quote:1. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth."

"Plumbing" does not affects religion. Evolution does. From the 'Christian evolutionist' perspective, Christ should have come to earth in much earlier stages of human development and thereby possibly eliminated more evil. Evolution distorts a proper concept of God; plumbing doesn't.


You have given a list of nominal Christians.

"More than 3,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)"

People think that evolution is a scientific truth. What people think and believe is not necessarily true. There are reputed scientists who do not hold to evolution at all.

"3. Anyone worried about atheism should be more concerned about creationism. Creationism can lead to a crisis of faith when people discover that its claims are false and its tactics frequently dishonest. This has led some people to abandon religion altogether (Greene n.d.). It has led others to a qualitatively different understanding of Christianity (Morton 2000)."

People converted from atheism to Christianity also have a crisis of faith! Crisis of faith is not the issue; truth is.

"4. By saying that only one religious interpretation is correct and universal, creationism typically is a rejection of every other religious interpretation. For example, young-earth creationists reject the religious interpretation that the universe is more than 10,000 years old (Sarfati 2004), and design theorists reject the idea that God has guided evolution (Dembski 1996). For people whose beliefs about God differ from those of a creationist, that creationism might just as well be atheistic. "

Again, this comes down to belief and faith. Some believe in creationism; most believe in evolution.

"Over 150 years of critical analysis and the addition of modern genetics into the modern synthesis theory all support the theory of descent with modification or change "

Absolutely false! It is subjective interpretation. Macro evolution does not exist.

You might be interested in a google search of 'chemical evolution of organic'.

[solidsquid]

Part I:

Pilgrim said:

Quote: "What textbooks are you reading? I have over ten of my own and none of them have Haeckel's drawings but photographs."

You used "but". So Haeckel's drawings do appear in your texts? Also, a search on the web easily generates examples of this fraud.

As in the texts don't have drawings, they have photographs of embryos in different stages of development.

The scientific definition you have quoted does not unequivocally say that a theory becomes a fact. It states that it is a "prediction". 'Prediction' does not mean 'fact'. Haeckel's scientific theory led to a prediction, not a fact.

In science there is no absolutes. Why do you insist on bringing up Haeckel's work which hasn't been considered in many years?

To address the Haeckel's drawings:

# Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)

# The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

# When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

The definition of fact:

# Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
#

1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real.

Evolution fits all these definitions, so therefore it can accurately be called a factual occurrence.

I understood you to be saying way back that because I was not distinguishing between "belief" and "true". I was equivocating. I never did equate the two terms, therefore I was not illogical. I did not say that you meant "equate".

You misunderstood, I said equivocate which has nothing to do with equating.

Maybe you don't know what equivocate means, even though I've told you and said how it pertains to what you said:

Equivocation (from Wikipedia):

The fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time round.

For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
So a feather cannot be dark.

The above argument commits this fallacy: The word light is used in the sense of having little weight the first time, but of having a bright colour the second time. Since the middle term in this syllogism is actually two different terms, equivocation is actually a kind of the fallacy of four terms.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as he goes in such a way to achieve equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Is "ToE" to believe? Politically, religiously, scientifically, etc. People believe. People have faith. Faith and belief is contextual to all people regardless of the discipline. The mental excercise of believing and trusting happens to everyone regardless of the discipline. So no, I don't have to resort to some so-called religious definintion.

You are still not understanding the context specifics of the semantics invovled. Review what I stated earlier with the information of equivocation in mind. You're taking the stance that, "evolution is no better than any other belief" but a mountain of evidence for evolution says otherwise.

Call it whatever you wish but the evidence speaks for itself.

I had said, If you didn't actually count the atoms, you did trust or had faith in someone other than yourself who gave you that information.

Strawman...and you completely ignored what I said. Still can't get around using words that have different meanings in different contexts as being the always same can you?

My point is that you have faith to believe that the 'verification' is true. As you know 'verifications' are revised.

This is why research is published in the way it is. My research on ginkgo biloba and memory enhancement I'm working on has to be written so that anyone can take that paper and recreate it if they so wish. Indpendent verification and repeatability are integral to research. As is the peer review system prior to publication. All these serve as checks to make sure the information presented is accurate to current understanding. What you're proposing is bordering on the "scientist conspiracy" argument.

Please explain what you mean by a flexible conclusion?

Was I not clear enough? Flexible meaning tentative in that it can and will be revised as new information comes to light. Just as scientific theories are amended as research brings new evidence to consider.

Take Webster's again.Atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity". If one claims not to know if there is a god or not, then that person is said to be an agnostic. "Agnostic atheists" is an example of equivocation.

No it isn't. Please review the information on equivocation to understand. Agnostic means to have no knowledge of and atheism is lack of belief in god(s). I have concluded that there isn't any reasonable evidence to show god(s) exist and therefore have concluded there are not god(s). However, if overwhelming evidence were to be presented, my position would be amended.

This is in contrast to gnostic atheists who positively assert that god(s) do not exist. Gnostic means to have knowledge of and atheism is lack of belief in god(s). There stance is an active while the weak or agnostic atheist simply goes upon a conclusion from lack of evidence to support the god(s) concept. I would agree with many that strong atheism has problems in that it would require omniscience to positively know there is no god(s).

It seems you attack atheism and evolution but you don't seem to know much about either.

Data and interpretation of the data are entirely different matters. Evolution is an interpretation.

The data cannot be "interpreted" in any other way. It's not like interpretation of literature. How about reading a nice book on quantative research methodology first before trying to assert that such is a matter of personal subjectivity of perception.

My thread did not begin the way you say it did.

Bullshit...you said:

Evolutionists also believe. Some believe that energy and matter are the origin of all things. The point is simply that when something is believed, faith is required.

You are claiming the acceptance of evolution requires faith (acceptance without verification) and lump abiogenesis with it, which is incorrect.

"Plumbing" does not affects religion. Evolution does. From the 'Christian evolutionist' perspective, Christ should have come to earth in much earlier stages of human development and thereby possibly eliminated more evil. Evolution distorts a proper concept of God; plumbing doesn't.

I know many people (scientists included) who are Christian evolutionists. What you propose they would all disagree with. What you are asserting "proper concept of god" is your opinion, your interpretation. Many see evolution as guided by a god or creator and even think of this creator as starting the entire process.

Again, this comes down to belief and faith. Some believe in creationism; most believe in evolution.

Show me some evidence of creationism, let's get down to the dirt on this one. We can start with evidence for say, noah's flood if you want.