But its a perfect example of people see what they want to see To me what I see on this forum are those who are blind to what they don't wish to see.
Science does not provide water-tight evidence of anything, admits that it could be wrong, and often does and changes its mind. The religious hardly ever agree with each other and believe without evidence that I have ever seen proposed such as God did it in a moment. The religious never admit that they could be wrong. Many atheists admit that they could be wrong about God. I have yet to come across a religious believer who admits that he/she could be wrong about the existence of God.
THERE are no intermediates,no missing links There are plenty of examples of evidence of missing links. You choose to reject the evidence of their existence preferring to believe in a God more complex than the universe itself just exists without evidence.
The key point where science(variation within a species)become belief,is when people like you manny/dbt9 then say this is what we BELIEVE HAPPENS,this is belief,not science,its a simple analysis. Evolution within a variation (subspecies) is the same process that relates to different species. You chose to believe in the process for one but not the other. It seems to me that you believe in evolution for those examples that don't prevent interbreeding, but as soon as it does God needs to be invoked. Of course, science relies on analysis - analysis is an integral part of science. We can't directly observe most of the processes in the universe because of such factors as size (too small or too far away) and time (we don't live long enough). I'm happy to call something based on analysis and evidence a belief and will ditch that belief in the light of evidence and analysis.
Not my buisness,but the disagreement is between science and belief You see disagreement between science and belief. I see disagreement between evidence-based analysis and beliefs and faith. --- Each to his/her own.
