[gallo]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Okay clearly, i cant spell, clearly i should retake high school english(= maybe its because i read over my english papers for ignorant statements before i turned them in. I dont doubt i have issues when it comes to writing. So maybe im just an undereducated idiot creationist who beleives in things with out any reason other than my own ignorance.

Could be. It could also be a sign of carelessness and lack of attention to detail.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan But just as a clarification, are saying that if you found one horse fossil bellow the K-T level you would reject evolution?

Pretty much, yes. It would certainly mean that much of what we understand to be true isn't.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Once agian i will reveal my ignorance and let you know that i dont know what the K-T level is. I imagine its one of the sedimentary levels that measures the passage of time because it forms at a constant rate. Let me know how wrong i am.

The K-T boundary is the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary Periods. It is about 65 million years old and in many places is quite visible. I grew up in Montana where it is visible in hillsides in many places around the state. It contains an extraordinary amount of iridium. The fossils below the K-T boundary come right up to it, but above it, there are no fossils for quite some distance before they slowly begin to be found again. There are no dinosaur fossils above the K-T boundary.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan With the statement about waiting a million years was i meant was: what is a testable statement evolution makes other than "One species will change into a new currently non-exsistent species in a long time" My point was that if that was its only testable claim then i would not beleive in evolution until this statement was proved correct.

Then it's a good thing that it isn't the only testable statement. Evolution has been tested over and over for abut 150 years. It has passed the tests to the point that virtually every qualified scientist in the world accepts evolution as true.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I do maintain that for me to accept something as science it must have a testable claim that can be disproven.

Then what is your problem? Is it that you haven't bothered to understand science or how it works? Is it that you know so little about biology that you think that evolutionary theory hasn't been tested?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan However i do beleive in some things that arent science. You on the other hand (i imagine, tell me if im wrong) would claim to only beleive what science says is true. So it is inconnsistent for you to beleive in something that is not testable, but not for me too do so.

Why would I make such a silly claim? So let me get this straight. You believe in things that are not testable, so you therefore reject evolutionary theory which has been tested, while you think that I only believe in what is testable so you claim that I believe in untestable evolution.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan There is another realm of human investigation that i beleive can be trusted, and that is reason and logic. Which is mainly why i beleive God exists.

Ah. Then you are saying that you have no faith but "believe" in god because that belief can be tested?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I do not think he can be emperically proven, nor do i think you can use reason to esatblish that he exists beyond all doubt.

You should have stopped with "exists." Otherwise you are again claiming that you have no faith.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I think that humans obviously have problems understanding the origin of our universe and its complexity whether your veiw includes God or does not. Either way has problems, I merely think that God is the most probable.

Why claim magic beings when they aren't necessary?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I think the only other logical claim is that man is not capable of understanding the origin of the universe.

Why is that logical?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I would prefer to chose the more probable over making new choice at all.

Then why invent magical beings, and what makes your particular magic being more probable that that of some other culture?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I suppose this is a bit off topic but all posts about problems with evolution ultimately boil down to creationism vs evolution, i dont ultimately beleive i can prove creationism but it cant be disproven because ignorant people like myself can always say GODIDIT!!!

Actually, problems with evolution have nothing to do with creationism. Evolution is science, based on empirical evidence and investigated by the scientific method. Creationism is irrelevant. The reason that there is a discussion is that creationists have attempted to force their religion on our children in public schools. The discussion has become one of creationists claiming that their religion is science and then being unable to support that claim. Without creationism, evolutionary theory would be the same. Creationism offers no problems for science.