[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

My statement still stands and that is that from what I can see, macroevolution is not fact, maybe one day it will be, maybe one day it will be disproven but until then, I am happy reading both sides of the argument open mindedly and not resorting to pulling down anyones belief system, be it the creation or evolution path.

There is NO "both sides of the argument" Gio.

THAT is the core of the whole issue that science has with creationists.

If creationists had been able in all of the past decades to provide one single scientific argument for creation, there would be "both sides"

BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED GIO, There is NO CONTROVERSY, the "Both sides" argument is AS FRAUDULENT AS ALL OTHER CLAIMS.

A court case proved this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Gio, I respect you as a person, I do not respect fraudulent claims however, and neither should you.

Please examine your claims and check them on intellectual honesty. Please.

So far I have provided credible sources for all my claims and exposed every single creationist argument as pseudo science or deliberate lies, as did science ever since creationists started to provide "evidence" for their claims.

Charles Dawson and his Piltdown man have been exposed by the academic world as you know Gio, and you also could be aware of the fact that Charles Dawson and every scientist who "verified" the Piltdown man as genuine has been ridiculed and some of them lost their credibility in the academic world forever.

When one lie is offered to science that's bad Gio, but when a group of religious extremists offer lie after lie for decades on a row, then it starts to become annoying. I hope you are able to understand this point of view from someone who does have a science degree and who had to work to get it, lies and deceit would not have provided me my chemistry degree Gio, and it would become rather dangerous to let people mess with science based on fraudulent assumptions, in the chemistry field for example, it could cause some nasty explosions.

There is no place whatsoever for superstition in science class, and as even a religious American judge has confirmed in a well known court case; ID is disguized creationism which is in its turn, a superstitious belief, like it or not, but that's the reality.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

Why do I need to keep providing you credible sources showing that ID/Creationism is proven not to be science? Both by court and by academic peer review?

If you are so open minded as you say you are, why do you deny the evidence which contradicts your claims?