QUOTE
BTW, evolution does not claim that humans came from Chimps
Let me explain this xmedia. Humans and Chimps have a common ancestor. Evolution does not believe that dogs turned into cats, or that humans came from chimps. Evolution believes that Chimps and Humans both came from Apes. I mention chimps because they are the closest relative. Plus it is an organism that most people are fairly familiar with.
QUOTE
for the theologian the will of god can supercede all scientific evidence/laws/facts
I know xmedia hates the catholics, but they are really the only good theologians around. Thats why i posted their statements from earlier. Most theologians and philosphers would argue that it is equally likely from a "creator god" perspective that the world was created yesterday. I will not go into this
They believe it is possible, but they(theologians) generally do not assert that just because something is possible that it is true.
QUOTE
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations are devised to explain what happened in the past.
Let us not confuse science with the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
This is incredibly flawed.
1. Science views the data, and then makes tries to figure it out
2. Creationists have the answer, then they try to make the data fit, it is not based on any observation.
3. The theory of evolution is frequently observed, repeated, and used to make assumptions as to the outcome of events. All one needs to do is spend a day in the drug/medical field to be made keenly aware of this.
4. If current research being conducted proves that abiogenesis is possible, will you recant? If not, then why bring up abiogenesis at all. Most people are not referring to Kerkut's GTE when the discuss evolution, but his claims are not wholly inaccurate.
5. Evolution can explain both where we come from and where we are going. It is not origin science. IT can be, but it doesnt have to be.
QUOTE
The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
This is not wholly true. First one must consider that all of the constraints you are placing on dogs and people and everything is purely subjective. If you were to show an alien a chihuhua and a great dane, they would probably assume they were different animals. The fact that the continue to be able to reproduce with each other is due to many factors, but speciation has been observed many times(not with dogs). Secondly evolution does not preach, and if it did it certainly wouldnt preach that life is a blurred contiuum. It claims that evolution occurs in spurts to allow organisms to adapt to new enviroments. An example of this is the constantly changing strains of flu or the common cold. The spurts of their evolution are constant because antibodies are always being produced against them. An organism like a fox has pretty much the same enviroment.
QUOTE
There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations. Micro-evolution on the other hand gives us the reasons that spieces all have minor physical characteristics that make us different from one another
This is a boldface lie. First off you cannot have abundant evidence that something doesnt happen. This is proving the negative.
There is plenty of evidence that macro-evolution occurs:
1. Strong genetic similarities between species
2. Having seen it occur
3. Intermediate organisms between two distinctly different organisms
A worldwide flood would not contradict evolution, it would only contradict modern geology. The only people who have claimed a worldwide flood are motivated by religion. Forget the fact that there isnt enough water on Earth to flood all of the land. Forget that even if a flood did occur in 40 days that the water would have been falling faster than physically possible. Forget that the water would have had nowhere to go afterwards. Forget all of that, and there is still no credible evidence that a worldwide flood occured.
Evolution is supported by the
majority of scientific observations. The theory of evolution suggested DNA long before it was discovered. It didnt suggest just heredity, it suggested that some form of tracking heredity existed that also allowed for occasional mutation...DNA
XMEDIA what in the theory of evolution is junk science?
What about it is illogical?
Maybe if the only science you ever encountered was in a HS remedial studies room then Evolution doesnt make logical sense, but to anyone in the field it is inherently obvious.
I know you wont be able to answer this, but please try.
