[shimei]

Hi Mark,

With respect to the mods post (acknowledging TheLastSuperman), I will not continue the discussion with regard to politics, religion, or circumcision. I will, however, address your responses:

Originally Posted by MarkFL

That makes no sense. Your rejection of the principle of evolution makes it no less an indisputable fact. If fact goes against faith, which is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking, then it is faith that must be discarded.

Please clarify, because your argument seemingly equates to a teacher standing in front of a class saying Simeon says.

and so the opinions of medical experts is what interests me here. They have done the science....

I care what climatologists, who are the experts in the field, have to say.

Mark, you have provided a definition of faith as: "purposeful suspension of critical thinking", and then suggested "it is faith that must be discarded".

Are you suggesting that critical thinking is not suspended by your faith in scientist?

Note: I am not disputing micro-evolution. Darwinian and Macro-evolution is not science, but rather an assumption. That is, unless you can provide proof "observational data (who was there to witness these events?) and replication (repeat the theory of evolution to verify the facts) to support "their" narration?

Before turning to the fossil record, I am willing to dispute the narration of stick figures, and I will suggest that a person's worldview has a great impact and influence on objectivity of the facts.

In conclusion, I respectively suggest redefining faith as: an action based on belief sustained by confidence. Another words, your responses (action) are based on scientists (belief) and of other men (confidence) performing proper scientific method.

Shim