\"I hate that evolutionists are pushing evolution as a fact simply because they don't want to believe in something higher than themselves.\"
\nIt always amuses me that you Fundies presume that they know why I accept the ToE and why I am an atheist. I understand the ToE and I accept it because, given the existing evidence, it is the best explanation we have for the development of the lifeforms on earth. If you would produce some credible, compelling evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to reexamine my stances on the ToE and atheism.\n\n\n\"It has prevented me from validifying their scientific discoveries because I believe there is alterior motive.\"\n\nSo, you are incapable of reviewing the evidence, because you believe the people presenting the evidence have an alterior motive, not because the evidence is in anyway faulty? That's stupid.\n\n\n\"Arguing evolution vesus ID is like me arguing reality with my nintendo.\"\n\nI agree.\n\n\n\"Who am I to argue a billion years of evolution didn't occur in a single day when I am restricted by time and he is not.\"\n\nWho are you to assert the existence of God with no supporting evidence? Put the cart before the horse, geatz.\n\n\n\"You should be forming mathematical proofs to prove that 0=1 instead of arguing with christians, whom are going to believe in creation whether evolution is fact or not.\"\n\nNo, trying to prove 0=1 is pointless. Some of the brighter Christians may be swayed by a fair presentation of the ToE vs ID facts, therefore, that is not pointless.\n\n\n\"Why not try arguing why our ancestors evolved instead of arguing if they evolved. The fact that so many evolutionists are still arguing \"if\" leads me to believe you aren't so confident in your findings.\"\n\nIf you knew anything about the ToE and it's supporters, you would know that we DO explain or \"argue\" WHY lifeforms evolve.\n\nScience always allows for the possiblity that findings may be incorrect. The better supported a position becomes, the less likely it is that that position is incorrect, but being incorrect is always a possibility. Those positions which are found to be incorrect will be corrected as better evidence becomes available. One of the problems with religious dogma is that it is fixed. It is confidently proclaimed to be correct regardless of evidence to the contrary.