Evolution or Creation?

[lvbuckeye]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

How long have you studied genetics? Do you have a degree in the field? I ask these questions because none of this commentary is consistent with what little I know about the field. It also is not consistent with the excellent discussions by Dr. Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University and a devout Christian. See his page at Ken Miller's Evolution Page

that guy ain't a devout Christian.

[Buckeye Maniac]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

facts about evolution like genetic principles don't allow it, and the fossil record doesn't support it? go read Darwin on Trial.

I'd suggest you watch the Nova documentary about the Dover evolution trails.

Also, I don't understand why you think the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Have they ever found human fossils in with the dinosaur fossils? No, well there goes the theory that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Have the ever found fossils of blue whales? No, well, if nothing evolved then there would be some wouldn't there?

The fossil record supports evolution quite well, it seems you can't see the forest through the trees.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

not to mention the fact that believing in evolution supposes there was death and suffering before sin, which goes aginst the very foundation of the Christian faith. so, either God is who He says He is and created a perfect world which was corrupted by sin, or He isn't who He says He is and created an imperfect world which needed to evolve before reaching the point of perfection before the fall through sin... not very consistent...

Plant and animal death and decay would seem to fall out of the realm of liability regarding human sin, no?

I would also say that the idea that evolution denotes imperfection would be a fallacy.

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

Plant and animal death and decay would seem to fall out of the realm of liability regarding human sin, no?

I would also say that the idea that evolution denotes imperfection would be a fallacy.

Evolution denoting imperfection is true untilou can prove where the first item ever came from but from an Almighty and everlasting God.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by IronBuckI

I think that he's stating that this specific thread has not evolved since its creation.

At least someone understands me......IronBuck, be afraid!

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

Evolution denoting imperfection is true untilou can prove where the first item ever came from but from an Almighty and everlasting God.

Would you mind restating this?

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

that guy ain't a devout Christian.

Oh, when in doubt.... discredit.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

...believing in evolution supposes there was death and suffering before sin, which goes aginst the very foundation of the Christian faith...

Sin has something to do with chipmunks, bluegills, and protozoa? Interesting concept.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

"facts" about evolution like genetic principles don't allow it, and the fossil record doesn't support it...

Goebbels used this same philosophy. Keep repeating the same things over and over again, and eventually some people will start believing it, even if you offer no supporting documentation. Or, similarly, if the "documentation" you provide is inaccurate.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Sin has something to do with chipmunks, bluegills, and protozoa? Interesting concept.

If you do it right, them chipmunks and protozoas make for some fine lovin' bitches!!!

[lvbuckeye]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Maniac

I'd suggest you watch the Nova documentary about the Dover evolution trails.

Also, I don't understand why you think the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Have they ever found human fossils in with the dinosaur fossils? No, well there goes the theory that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Have the ever found fossils of blue whales? No, well, if nothing evolved then there would be some wouldn't there?

The fossil record supports evolution quite well, it seems you can't see the forest through the trees.

let's see, take the Cambrian explosion for example. numerous phyla, appearing suddenly, fully formed, with no precursory forms, which maintain stasis, and with no transitional forms. the fossil record is so incomplete (from a Darwinian perspective) that evolutionists had to invent punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it away.

it's not observable. it's not testable. it's not falsifiable. it's not science.

[lvbuckeye]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Goebbels used this same philosophy. Keep repeating the same things over and over again, and eventually some people will start believing it, even if you offer no supporting documentation. Or, similarly, if the "documentation" you provide is inaccurate.

kind of like what they've done with evolutionary theory, huh?

[Taosman]

Evolution is a science that keeps looking for the truth.
Creation is religion that is a fixed, unchanging point of belief.
There is a difference. (no smiley)

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Taosman

Evolution is a science that keeps looking for the truth.

Evolution is not a science, it is a product of a science.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Maniac

I'd credit that more with the fact that creationists are unable to accept the indisputable facts that are being presented in defense of evolution.

This statement is nothing more than a perfect example of how this thread seems incapable of evolving.

If there was a true conversation occurring here it would evolve in one of two ways: 1) people who disagree, although they would remain in disagreement would at least begin to appreciate the other person's position; 2) the arguments on both sides would become more nuanced and sophisticated. As your post demonstrates, there is neither appreciation in disagreement or sophistication of argument.