Foyle, you write:
<<Of course evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by substantial amounts of evidence in the same way that the theory of gravity or Einstien's Relativity Theories are supported by evidence. Science relies on evidence to support each theory.

Newton's earlier motion theories were shown by evidence to comply with Einstein's Theory, but only at velocities that are a low fraction of the speed of light. Thousands of lines of evidence over more that 110years has shown that so far Einstein's Theories do not need modification.

The evolution of man theory could be refuted if verifiable evidence was found which supported a theory that mankind made a spontaneous appearance on the scene. Such evidence has never been found!>>

Foyle,

Please consider the following statement of Newton's law of gravety from Wikipaedia.

<<Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.>>

Please explain how you draw the analogy between this law and the proposition that "Human beings evolved from another species"

cont...

cont..

Secondly, consider the following example. Suppose scientists initially claim that fossels A and B fit in to the evolutionary chain that has lead to human beings. Then suppose that due to more accurate dating technology it was found that change was much more rapid than the traditional Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection would warrant. The response of someone who accepts the premise that "human beings evolved form other specieis" would be to say the fossels do not constitute evidence. So when one hears "all the evidence" supports your theory, this type of instance would be excluded from "all the evidence". Your theory becomes irrefutable.

Foyle you say:
<< The evolution of man theory could be refuted if verifiable evidence was found which supported a theory that mankind made a spontaneous appearance on the scene. Such evidence has never been found!>>

Scientisits who accept the evolutionary hypothesis would dismiss any such evidence because it would not be consistent with the premise the "human beings evolved from another species". The methodology does not permit refutation.

<<It is you who is ducking the issue. It is you who is ignoring factual evidence in your favouring of the scribblings of uneducated ancients with no knowledge of modern science and scientific method.>>

Clearly you are not confortable when someone is not willing to uncitically accept your premise that "human beings evolved from another species". Take care not to fall into a fundamentalist mentality. Stick to reason.

Hi Trav.
"<we have no writings from him;>

Nor would we expect any."
Why not? There are more than a few written works from and before that time; written by mere humans with no supernatural advantages. Why is it unreasonable for Jesus? Mohammed had no problems.

"< no carpentry works>."

"Ditto."
Ditto indeed. Again, there are works of carpentry dating back to and before the time of Jesus, again without supernatural advantages.
Imagine how much easier it would be for sceptics to believe, if there was just a little bit of tangible evidence.
Why would a God deliberately withhold evidence of it's own existence, if belief is so crucial to everlasting life?
To those theists who believe birth control is wicked, what say you about this apparently quite deliberate population control, of the after life?

Grateful,
Science works on "supposes". That is what an hypothesis is. But science also works on evidence. That is what I was pointing out with the acceptance of Newton's laws of motion as only the low velocity case of Einstein's Relativity.

The date of each fossil found, to be accepted as accurate, has to be verified by several separate dating techniques carried our by separate laboratories. Those methods include the well known half-life decay rates of specific radioactive elements. Fission tracking and nuclear decay dating did lead to changes in the dating of fossils found earlier than the late sixties but the fossils were shown to be older than first thought.

Science is older than than the Christian or Moslem religions.

I will close my comments on this matter with a quote from the well known physicist Bob Park who writes an email each week called "What's New". I read that email each week because it has real value to the future of the human race. The scribes of old should be irrelevant to any thinking person and usually are. Park wrote;

"On May 28, 585 B.C. the swath of a total solar eclipse passed over the Greek island of Miletus. The early Greek philosopher, Thales of Miletus, alone understood what was happening. The world's first recorded freethinker, Thales rejected all supernatural explanations, and used the occasion to state the first law of science:

every observable effect has a physical cause.

The 585 B.C. eclipse is now taken to mark the birth of science, and Thales is honoured as the father.

What troubles would be spared the world if the education of every child began with causality."
I say amen to that!

Foyle:
<<every observable effect has a physical cause.>>
Why any such law should exist in the first place is the question science CANNOT answer. But, as you wish, let's move on.

Returning to Epicurus, you stated:

<<The evidence that would satisfy me that a god exists would be if the evidence showed that the Epicurus long aphorism is wrong . In case you do not know it it is,

If god is willing to prevent evil but unable
Then he is not omnipotent
If he is able but not willing he is malevolent
If he is both able and willing
Whence cometh evil
If neither able nor willing
Why call him god.>>

My son was once playing with an open fire BBQ. I knew in all probability he would burn his fingers, I could have stopped him but did not. He burned his finger. Does that necessarily make me a malevolent father?

I’m approaching an intersection and I notice an old lady running from behide to cross the road. I trip her up and she falls flat on her face breaking her nose. Does that necessarily make me a malevolent person?

I come across someone lying on the beach. I punch the person in the chest breaking several ribs. Does that make me a malevolent person?

In each of these examples I have ommitted the intended consequence of my actions but you are intelligent enough to realise that the answer as to whether my actions are malevalent or not depends on the intended consequence.

Grateful,
You have fallen back to the idiotic 'we cannot know the mind of god defence'. In an earlier post I warned against that defence.

You are in effect agreeing with the idea that god permitted the HIV virus to jump the species barrier to punish humans, many of whom are innocent victims of someone else's behaviour, such as the virtuous wives and of promiscuous men.

I would back my ethics against yours or your god's any day.