Replies

Westbrook, you can delineate some of the specific "assertive pronouncements and predictions" that have been "proven false" and then "quickly shoved under the rug." We can start with the prediction of the "evolution" of the fruitfly, or anything else for that matter, by random mutations induced by various stimuli, chemical and radioactive, in or out of the laboratory.

It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Of course, we'll be accused of taking these statements "out of context".

But just to amuse you, here's another quote.

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.

There are so many more, they are too numerous to count. But you're a big boy and shouldn't need me to do your research for you.

I'm certain, since I was once on the other side of the fence, that you can find many creative ways to refute the Creationist's claims in the same manner that we can find many creative ways to refute your claims.

We have the same evidence.

But we have different worldviews.

But if your logic is a descendent of random chemical processes, how can you even trust it to correctly assess, analyze, and explain the universe in which it finds itself?

For the "Theistic" Evolutionists, you must choose Christ or Evolution. If God's plan was to redeem man by evolving him to a higher life form over time, then Christ's sacrifice is meaningless.

Without the Garden of Eden; without Adam's sin and the curse of death that followed; if "nature red in tooth and claw" was "very good" to God at the beginning; if death, which is as important to evolutionism as genetic mutations, was part of God's intent for man from the beginning; then why do we need Christ to redeem us from death?