dan/quote,<<..Most people just go along with evolution as the popular view...>>

this is as i BELIEVE AS WELL
its easier to say..science=god,..than refute it
i like hreatful..began with the science..studied my god..of science then found it had feet..of clay..went looking for the rral cause

i found the false god of lunus[TAXOMONY]..WHERE ..a feature is assumed..to have 'evolved'..once..then creating tenious linkages to the creature feature..by linial decent..but science now has found..the tree theory fraud

if it looks like..[phenotype]..isnt science..[ISNT FALSIFYABLE..THUS ISNT SCIENCE..science needs confirm..by genotype..BUT ..IF YOU DRAW CLEVER DRAWINGS..ITS ENOUGH TO FOOL THE FAITHFUL..IN SCIENCE infallibility..[as long as you ignore true science..like mendelism ..applicable to micro evolution..but refuting macro evolution.]

<<..They assume the evidence must be there for why else would so many believe it? Does this assumption make them 'fundamentalist'?..>.

I BELIEVE ANY deliberately chosen..IGNORANCE/hurt/ego..on any topic/Subject..is fundamental to self perpetuating human ignorance..[wether it be false belief in man..or god.]..

ie GODS SURE SIGN=LIFE/LOVE/LOGIC Sustained..by the light

science has never 'evolved'..any new genus
[this is a clear sign of fraid]..survival..of fittest..NEVER..changed any GENUS*..its not a genetic change..sheep breed sheep/fish breed fish..ignorance breeds ignorance.

its not of gods will
but for too many..its their will[the easy way=let others think..for you.[let them get the credit/blame..oh look a STAR..is on tv/crack open a tube..lets watch max smart..now thats real science,,[sci trance]

I wasn't trying to remind you of anything, Dan S de Merengue. Merely indicating to grateful (in case he wished to search earlier discussions) that I was not singling out the Qu'ran for the fact that it is not 'evidence' in the sense of his challenge to athiests.

If you think about it, by the way, that challenge probably applies moreso to someone like yourself who holds to a literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to their faith.

For the record I accept that you have a "...fair understanding of the basic elements of the scientific method and rules of logic" and you know my contention is that you choose to ignore them.

But I would say that being, fundamentally, a critical rationalist who "hold[s] that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

Whereas my Weslyan Bible Christian Church missionary forebears would pity your wrong-headedness whilst applauding your devotion. Methodists were like that in Devon.

A contemplative though dour lot. I blame the lack of dancing.

WmTrevor,
Thanks for clarifying. But I don't really know what you mean when you say that I hold a 'literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to my faith'. I read Genesis in a straight forward manner as that is the way all the New Testament writers took it. And they understood the essentials of the faith better than me. 

And as for saying that you can only claim knowledge that can be rationally criticised, tested and falsified, there must be a lot you can't know. How do you know if your wife loves you? How do you know if Hannibal ever really crossed the Alps riding elephants? 

I don't know if you consider these rationally verifiable. Perhaps? For the latter, its verification relies on studies of history. Essentially the Christian faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the NT documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)

An interesting distinction, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I don't really know what you mean when you say that I hold a 'literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to my faith'. I read Genesis in a straight forward manner as that is the way all the New Testament writers took it.<<

There seems to be a suggestion that you see a difference between "in a straightforward manner" and "literally".

It is a little too subtle a differentiation for me to accept without some further explanation - can you help out?

In many of our previous discussions, I have taken it for granted that the only basis for your belief in young-earth creationism is a literal (as opposed to allegorical or metaphorical) reading of Genesis. Yet here you seem to be hinting that this is not necessarily the case.

Can you expand?

Dan S de Meregue, a straightforward reading of what I quoted does not equal, "And as for saying that you can only claim knowledge that can be rationally criticised..." rather the opposite in that claims to knowledge can and should be criticised.

But you are correct that there is a lot I can't know... the mind of god being one of them.

As for "I don't really know what you mean when you say that I hold a 'literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to my faith'..." allow me to borrow Dr Terry Mortenson's words:

"We should take Genesis 1–11 as straightforward, accurate, literal history because Jesus, the Apostles, and all the other biblical writers did so. There is absolutely no biblical basis for taking these chapters as any kind of non-literal, figurative genre of literature. That should be reason enough for us to interpret Genesis 1–11 in the same literal way... Only a literal, historical approach to Genesis 1–11 gives a proper foundation for the gospel."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/literal-genesis

But if you now only claim to taking it as straightforward and not as accurate, literal history or possibly as non-literal and figurative you will, as Pericles invited, need to expand.

I'm conscious that grateful's "If they want to challenge my faith then they should provide evidence that the Prophet was a liar and/or the Qur'aan has been corrupted since its revelation" requirement of disproof stands... I edited this together to see if it clarified his assertion:

Essentially the muslim faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the Qu'ran documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)

Tricky things these claims to knowledge.

Thanks for the quote from Dr Terry Mortenson. It does help to clarify things, as I am in total agreement with this view. When I used the word 'straightforward', he and I are using it in the same sense. 

So there should be no confusion. Genesis means what it says. And it gives background and foundation for the understanding of the gospel.

I sometimes hesitate to use the word 'literal' as this word is sometimes twisted and used out of context. There is even some trend in some recent literature that conflates the words 'literal' with the word 'literary'. So I'm just trying to be clear. But I'm happy with the way Terry Mortenson used it in the context of Genesis above.

As for the basis of the creationist view, it is, as you say, founded in the Scriptures, which follow from Jesus' teachings. There is the biblical creationist argument, which argues from a theological perspective. And there is also the scientific creationist argument, which argues from logic and observation of the body of empirical evidence. In our numerous conversations, I think I have at least touched on both of these to some degree.

As for the Koran, I can't say I know a lot about its historical background. I do suspect that it is quite a bit different to that of the New Testament. The NT is a collection of writings which circulated in the early centuries, derived from several authors, times, and gathered from a variety of places. So there's a lot of history involved. The Koran is one revelation from one prophet. This singular aspect gives researching its history quite a different angle.