Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[Valjean]

You see....this is what happens when you ask for the proof that evolution ever happened.....you've got nothing. I am not dismissing evolution....I am questioning its validity when no proof for science's assumptions are ever provided.

Deeje, you clearly don't know why scientists believe in evolution and the ToE. You're obviously not aware of the mountains of evidence, from many different disciplines, supporting the fact that change occurs.
Just because you don't see "proof" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You say we have nothing, we show you what you claim we don't have, and you ignore it.

Evolutionists want proof for a Creator....why can't we have proof for evolution doing what scientists claim it did? If "believing" doesn't make something a fact...then science is in the same boat as we are. They just can't admit it. If science had actual proof, then this debate would not even be possible.

What is an "evolutionist," and why would such a creature care one way or the other about a creator?
Apparently you don't understand science. "Proof" is not in science's vocabulary.
I think you're thinking of science as a sort of faith based religion. You're patterning it after your own church.

Science doesn't accept things on faith. Science accepts things on tangible, tested, peer reviewed evidence, and, even then, everything's provisional, subject to change pending new evidence.

 

[metis]

When one tries to force subjective religious concepts into objective science, they're simply barking up the wrong tree.

And vice-versa, btw.

 

[metis]

The Catholic Church made sex out to be original sin for centuries

"Original sin" is traditionally believed to be something you're borne with, therefore having sex has not been viewed as being "original sin" within the CC:
Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. It is an important doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. --http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml

 

[TravisW]

Doesn't that depend on what we consider "original sin" to be?

The Catholic Church made sex out to be original sin for centuries (I'm not sure if it still retains that belief) but there was an original sin that was committed by the first humans and it forms the basis for a redeemer to come into the world. If we understand the role of a redeemer, then without original sin, there was no reason for Jesus to offer his life. You remove a need for his mission. Original sin is a fact (Romans 5:12) so what do you think it is, so that it can so easily be dismissed by those who call themselves "Christians"? It obviously wasn't sex because God told them to have children.....



The scriptures indicate that he did both. How do you accept one without the other?
If we inherit sin as a result of being human, then there is two kinds of sin.....the one that operates in our human body that results in aging, sickness and death.....and the one we choose to commit by choice. Christ died to remove the first kind, and to forgive the second as long as there is repentance. So there is no such thing as a sin people didn't commit. We are born sinful by our very nature thanks to the actions of our first parents. Whether we 'practice' sin or not is up to us.



Which leads us to the question as to why there are "branches" of Christianity in the first place. Jesus taught one truth...it was men who twisted what he said and led people in different directions....he foretold that this would happen with his parable of the "wheat and the weeds", so what do you think Jesus is doing right now in the midst of all these different versions of what he taught, that he said were planted by the devil? There are many "weeds" but only one kind of "wheat"......so how do we find them?

Human interpretation will always cause branches in thought, it was event referenced within Paul’s letters “I follow Paul, I follow Apollo’s and another I follow Jesus.” Within less than a century after Christianity’s birth it was already splintering.

That doesn’t mean only one branch of belief is the “true” thought, as long as the branch comes from the vine. Christ says, he is the Vine and we are the branches, implicating, while we are all connected to Christ (and to a greater scope God), we all branch off differently, connected through a commandment of love.

It matters not that everyone has the exact same doctrines and beliefs, as long as we spread love. In fact these differences could be a benefit, as it allows more people to be reached by different approaches to a message of love (and any message that does not contain the commandment to Love is a branch that should be cut off and should be burned).

I personally view sin as a separation from God, or a failure to give and receive love. Adam and Eve seem more like a metaphor to me about how humanity often chooses to pursue their own selfish desires over Life (or Love).

A literal reading of scripture (which tends to be the prevalent thought from a lot of Christians currently) doesn’t provide much room to co-exist with science, which is what I think puts all of these things at odds.

A reading of scripture that focuses more on context, genre, metaphor and an approach to look for the actual core meaning seems to give more room to both accept factual science and faith. It does, however, require you to let go of a need for certainty and knowledge of all the answers and open yourself to belief despite uncertainty, ie faith.

 

[Deeje]

Human interpretation will always cause branches in thought, it was event referenced within Paul’s letters “I follow Paul, I follow Apollo’s and another I follow Jesus.” Within less than a century after Christianity’s birth it was already splintering.

And yet Paul said....."What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.” 13 Is the Christ divided? Paul was not executed on the stake for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The "splintering" was not encouraged, but condemned. Paul said that it 'divided Christ' to follow mere men....he also wrote..."Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." Are you now arguing with Paul to suit what you want to believe? There is great spiritual danger in doing that IMO.

That doesn’t mean only one branch of belief is the “true” thought, as long as the branch comes from the vine. Christ says, he is the Vine and we are the branches, implicating, while we are all connected to Christ (and to a greater scope God), we all branch off differently, connected through a commandment of love.

Did Jesus accept the sects in Judaism? Did he not condemn them outright? There can be no "branches" because there is only one truth.....not several versions of it, depending on how you want to interpret things. (2 John 8-11)

John said we could identify Christ's true disciples by the love they had for one another (John 13:34-35)....but in the two world wars of last century, Catholic killed Catholic and Protestant killed Protestant in direct disobedience to Christ's command to 'love our enemies and to pray for those who want to harm us'. (Matthew 5:43-45) If such a situation arose again today, where would the average "Christian" stand? How do those of Christendom who serve in the armed forces right now, comply with the teachings of the Christ? They train to kill their enemies. God gives us wisdom to override patriotic pride when it conflicts with Christian obedience. No Christian in all conscience should even be in the military in the first place. If we have faith, it must be backed up by works that do not conflict with Christ's teachings.

"But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that his faith was active along with his works and his faith was perfected by his works......You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.....Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:20-26)

It matters not that everyone has the exact same doctrines and beliefs, as long as we spread love.

What love is being spread if the churches are supporting their nations in armed conflicts? You think charities are all that is necessary?
What about the great commission? Who is participating in the preaching and disciple making work that Jesus commanded to be carried out "in all the inhabited earth"? (Matthew 28:19-20) He was going to direct this work, right to the end of the age. (Matthew 24:14)

In fact these differences could be a benefit, as it allows more people to be reached by different approaches to a message of love (and any message that does not contain the commandment to Love is a branch that should be cut off and should be burned).

Or it could mean that the devil has many different kinds of bait to attract the unwary and uneducated. In our work, we see that most people who attend church have a smattering of Bible knowledge but by and large have the attitude that their minister or priest knows it all for them. They therefore do not bother to progress in knowledge further than a few basics.....They read a scripture like John 3:16 and think that's all there is to it....big mistake. If love is not promoted past patriotism or if charity is seen as the only works necessary, then there is no love that is of any lasting value.

I personally view sin as a separation from God, or a failure to give and receive love. Adam and Eve seem more like a metaphor to me about how humanity often chooses to pursue their own selfish desires over Life (or Love).

Then you have no basis for belief in Jesus or why he came and what the sacrifice of his life means for humanity. He didn't come metaphorically the first time.....and his second appearance will not be metaphorical either. I believe that time will prove that point.

A literal reading of scripture (which tends to be the prevalent thought from a lot of Christians currently) doesn’t provide much room to co-exist with science, which is what I think puts all of these things at odds.

I believe you are wrong about that. A literal reading of scripture does indeed co-exist with true science i.e. what science "knows and can prove" as opposed to what science "assumes and invents scenarios for".....what it doesn't agree with is the theory of evolution as told by those who basically want God to go away. He is an inconvenience to the godless and science then becomes the substitute 'religion' of the intellectuals. "God" is not a four letter word but you'd think it was in some circles.
They have their own 'saints' and 'scripture' and teach in their grand temples of higher education.

For the uneducated masses, religion has been supplanted by sports with their idols running around a bit of grass with a ball of various shapes in huge temples that house thousands of adoring "fans" (fanatics) No one says boo about that. Perhaps because their gods share their moral standards....there is nothing to live up to it seems...

Humans are programmed to worship....whatever you give your undivided attention to becomes the object of your devotion.

A reading of scripture that focuses more on context, genre, metaphor and an approach to look for the actual core meaning seems to give more room to both accept factual science and faith. It does, however, require you to let go of a need for certainty and knowledge of all the answers and open yourself to belief despite uncertainty, ie faith.

I just see spiritually weak people confused and hoodwinked by science, trying to make excuses for why evolution and God can be seen as somehow compatible....it appears to be the only way that they can still claim belief in God whilst not looking like a complete moron to the science buffs. Is there some reason why faith has to give way to science?

There is a way to blend science and the Bible without being forced into one camp or the other. God remains the Creator of all things, just as he says....and true science backs up what he did, allowing all the time in the world to accomplish it. That makes more sense to me than millions of fortunate accidents occurring over billions of years with no real proof that it ever happened.

 

[metis]

If there was to be "no division", which I agree there shouldn't be, then there simply is no room for the JW's in that scenario. Some just seem to want to have it both ways.

Known science, and the ToE is one aspect of that, does not in any way refute divine creation. And evolution stands to common sense even if one doesn't have a degree in any of the sciences, namely that all material things tend to change over time, and genes are material things-- pure & simple. Geneticist specialize in how genes work, and I've never run across one yet that denies the basic process of change in the evolution of life.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why do you creationists say stuff like this? Do you honestly believe that's true? If you really, truly believe evolution isn't science, I have some follow-up questions for you.

Absolutely. You take science then twist it. It is a theory, not a branch of science.

Except we also see populations evolving new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and even species. Why would you have us deny what see with our own eyes?

You see finches humping like rabbits in front of your eyes then refuse to correct the incorrect classification of them as separate species. Seems I’m not the one denying what I see with my own eyes. Yes, they call lots of things separate species, but that’s simply due to the species problem they have, because everyone wants to get their names in the book for discovering a new species. Can’t do that by calling them what they really are - subspecies......

So if you were shown even one example where a taxa's fossil record showed change over time, your claim above would be wrong, yes?

Why? Does a pug look like a wolf?

Ahhh, or is this the part where we claim they are separate species in the past without any proof at all? Or the part where we insert missing common ancestors to explain linking two separate things?

Where did the heat go?

It’s why the earths core is still molten........ believe it or not it is not a perpetual motion machine operating against friction for 4 billion plus years........

 

[metis]

It is a theory, not a branch of science.

Here's a definition of scientific theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

[Valjean]

Absolutely. You take science then twist it. It is a theory, not a branch of science.

It's a fact -- and a theory. In science, 'theory' is the highest degree of confidence possible. There are no proofs in science.
I don't think you understand science or the scientific process.

You see finches humping like rabbits in front of your eyes then refuse to correct the incorrect classification of them as separate species. Seems I’m not the one denying what I see with my own eyes. Yes, they call lots of things separate species, but that’s simply due to the species problem they have, because everyone wants to get their names in the book for discovering a new species. Can’t do that by calling them what they really are - subspecies......

Subspecies can interbreed, the new species we've seen develop no longer can.
As I've asked a hundred times: If you acknowledge small changes at a subspecies level, how is it that these small changes don't accumulate into big changes? How do the changes know when to stop?

How do you define 'species'?

Ahhh, or is this the part where we claim they are separate species in the past without any proof at all? Or the part where we insert missing common ancestors to explain linking two separate things?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you saying wolves were always wolves, and platypusses always platypusses from the beginning of the world?

It’s why the earths core is still molten........ believe it or not it is not a perpetual motion machine operating against friction for 4 billion plus years........

Now you've completely lost me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Absolutely. You take science then twist it. It is a theory, not a branch of science.

You see finches humping like rabbits in front of your eyes then refuse to correct the incorrect classification of them as separate species. Seems I’m not the one denying what I see with my own eyes. Yes, they call lots of things separate species, but that’s simply due to the species problem they have, because everyone wants to get their names in the book for discovering a new species. Can’t do that by calling them what they really are - subspecies......

Why? Does a pug look like a wolf?

Ahhh, or is this the part where we claim they are separate species in the past without any proof at all? Or the part where we insert missing common ancestors to explain linking two separate things?

It’s why the earths core is still molten........ believe it or not it is not a perpetual motion machine operating against friction for 4 billion plus years........

Now my follow-up question...how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of earth and life scientists across the world have been in agreement on the validity of evolution for the last 150+ years? Do you chalk it up to a gigantic conspiracy? Mass incompetence? A magic spell?

 

[gnostic]

Day-age creationism fails because the order of events in Genesis is still wrong even if you lengthen the days.

Yes.

It is especially wrong, when if the day is age or period of a thousand, million or billion of years, which would mean that all plant life (3rd day in Genesis 1) would have been created existed thousands or millions before the 4th day, which is the creation of sun, moon and stars.

Not bloody likely.

 

[tas8831]

There is nothing at all wrong with faith and science existing in harmony.

But evolution is not science.

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory....
- Todd Wood, PhD (biochem) creationist​

Remind us about your scientific background, won;t you?

Just as Husky mates with Husky and remains Husky. Just as Mastiff mates with Mastiff and remains Mastiff. Yet when Husky mates with Mastiff variation enters the record suddenly and we get the Chinook

Where did Mastiff and Husky come from in the first place?

Were they separate dust creations?

So yes, 4+ billion years of radioactive decay has occurred, but it occurred in just several thousand years.

Show us the specific calculations please.

 

[tas8831]

Absolutely. You take science then twist it. It is a theory, not a branch of science.

Chuckling a bit at that.

Why? Does a pug look like a wolf?

Ahhh, or is this the part where we claim they are separate species in the past without any proof at all?

That is what you do with your "it is all hybridization" claims.

Or the part where we insert missing common ancestors to explain linking two separate things?

Missing common ancestors like Adam and Eve, from just a few thousand years ago?

I eagerly await your copy-pasted/paraphrased/regurgiposted treatises on how all 'races' of humans arose via the inbreeding of the descendants of a breeding pair that was the same
race', all without any mutation.

 

[gnostic]

Deeje, you clearly don't know why scientists believe in evolution and the ToE. You're obviously not aware of the mountains of evidence, from many different disciplines, supporting the fact that change occurs.

No, Valjean.

It is not that she isn’t aware of the evidences for evolution; it has lot more to do with JW indoctrination that make her refused to acknowledge there are so many evidences being presented to her.

But the funny thing is that she has in the past, presented photos of so many different pictures of animals, and she would assert that of God’s creation, and to her they are evidences for God. And yet in none of these photos does God ever appear in them “creating” these animals.

Where are the photos of God himself? Where are the evidences for God?

There are none, so she is only rationalizing God exist.

So she doesn’t understand the concept of evidence, or don’t want to understand what evidence is.

I think all creationists have the same mentality.

 

[Audie]

Absolutely. You take science then twist it. It is a theory, not a branch of science.


You see finches humping like rabbits in front of your eyes then refuse to correct the incorrect classification of them as separate species. Seems I’m not the one denying what I see with my own eyes. Yes, they call lots of things separate species, but that’s simply due to the species problem they have, because everyone wants to get their names in the book for discovering a new species. Can’t do that by calling them what they really are - subspecies......


Why? Does a pug look like a wolf?

Ahhh, or is this the part where we claim they are separate species in the past without any proof at all? Or the part where we insert missing common ancestors to explain linking two separate things?


It’s why the earths core is still molten........ believe it or not it is not a perpetual motion machine operating against friction for 4 billion plus years........

I do wonder why it is that so many people who claim to
be / think the are on the side of truth and reason,
not to mention 'God", have no scruples at all
about just making things up as it suits them.


ETA
Or to adopt intellectual dishonesty as the way to go.

 

[tas8831]

You see....this is what happens when you ask for the proof that evolution ever happened.....you've got nothing. I am not dismissing evolution....I am questioning its validity when no proof for science's assumptions are ever provided.

i find it shocking that there are people - that want to be taken seriously - that still make such an obviously false assertion.

Here is what scientist and creationist Todd Wood has written about such claims:

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...​

Bolding mine.

What do you "know" that this creation scientist doesn't?

 

[tas8831]

It is a theory, not a branch of science.

 

[Audie]

i find it shocking that there are people - that want to be taken seriously - that still make such an obviously false assertion.

Here is what scientist and creationist Todd Wood has written about such claims:

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...​

Bolding mine.

What do you "know" that this creation scientist doesn't?

Well, in that the guy has done all that to announce
total intellectual dishonesty, i dont see much value
in it one way or another.

 

[Deeje]

Let's just take your bolded comments.....

There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.

Who can doubt the sheer volume of "evidence" for evolution?
But let me just separate what science "knows" and can demonstrate in a verifiable way, as opposed to what it assumes and suggests without being able to verify it.

Terminology is interesting.....we have "micro-evolution" which is the verifiable part of this theory....and then we have "macro-evolution" which is what science has assumed to have taken place due to deduction, assertion and large amounts of suggestion. Being able to verify adaptation, in no way takes us way beyond the boundaries of what can be verified. Then to suggest that it "might have" or "could have" taken place as they assume it did, to implying that it "must have" happened because they have no alternative suggestion apart from intelligent design.....well, any thinking person has to wonder....don't they? How do you move from science fact to science fiction without anybody actually noticing?

There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

It works, mainly because it has been promoted by those who should know. We all accept expert witness testimony, don't we? Even in a court of law, it carries weight.....but in scientific circles, it carries equal weight. If scientists can convince other scientists, then a theory can become a fact. Everyone accepts what the experts say. But the fact that they can present evidence for adaptation is one thing....the fact that they have no solid evidence for macro-evolution doesn't seem to bother anyone but those who support intelligent creation. When did that happen? The power of suggestion can sway the world to accept anything with no proof of its validity apart from an expert's say so. That is what underpins the whole advertising industry. You think science cannot employ that?

I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure.

I accept what science can establish as truth. No one can deny that adaptation is a force in nature, employed to bring about minor changes in creatures that guarantees survival in a changing environment. The two most famous examples used by scientists are Darwin's finches (tortoises and iguanas) and the Peppered Moths in Britain. There is well established "evidence" unquestionably true. But no taxonomy was altered in any of these species. Variety was achieved within a family of creatures....that is all.

You see, science wants to take what it "knows" about adaptation and force it into the realms of fantasy by suggesting things that can never be proven. They then look for things in the fossil record and other areas to back up what they assert. It finds similar looking creatures and makes assumptions about relationships....if you read the articles you will see these veiled suggestions that most people don't even notice.

People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

Nonsense. The inner workings of science are not what is questioned.....it is suggestions masquerading as facts and then presented as evidence, that is the problem. Science has a lot of clout in the world, but if it has to admit that it's theory can never be proven, it would lose a lot of credibility......I believe that is why scientists keep talking about "facts" that don't really exist. There are some very big egos in the world of academia.

There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory

Successful to whom? Only to those who want to believe it.
YEC operates purely on a faith based premise. Having faith in science results in the same outcome. Real evidence is pushed aside in favour of a preferred belief.

When you have two camps whose position is based on nothing but what they want to be true.....don't you have to question both?
Would it surprise you to know that there are those who don't accept either of these two opinions as if they were the only explanations?

There is an explanation that incorporates what science knows, but still allows what the Bible says about creation to be true. This is what I support.

Those who love God see the truth and are not forced to accept godless science as if it can't be wrong. The flaws are obvious if you know what you are looking at. But YEC is equally flawed IMV.

This fellow says....

That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.

This is true if you see only two camps.....this for me is not an either/or proposition. What the Bible reveals is that the creative "days" were not mere 24 hour periods. So does science. Nor does the Bible say that creation took place only thousands of years ago...nor does science. Thouough knowledge of what the Bible actually says, puts to bed all of the things science argues with. But science fiction must be separated from science fact. God is the creator, so as the inventor of science, the two must of necessity be compatible. I see that they are.

He goes on to say....

I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...

Evolution is very flawed and without substantive evidence for its proposed scenario. I believe both camps have been duped by their own rigid and unyielding "faith". You don't have to defect from science or the Bible if you carefully examine both.

What do you "know" that this creation scientist doesn'

I know that Young Earth Creationism is as equally flawed as macro-evolution.
If you have some verifiable evidence that macro-evolution ever happened, I'm all ears.....but there cannot be suggestions or assertions....just real verifiable evidence. OK?

 

[gnostic]

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

It is more often than not, for creationists, BOTH.