Summations Only

There is simply no evidence for that. It's all conjecture, all assumption based on the conjecture.

That's not a fact.

The first science fiction novel was the Bible. He'd be amazed at how much sense biology finally makes in the light of evolution.

Some words from the Bible come to mind:

quote:

---

Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

---

Your mathematics is as bad as your biology.Seriously. Why reject evolution? When you get on an airplane, do you go to the cockpit and tell the pilot he doesn't know what he's doing? Where do you get the colossal arrogance to think you have anything intelligent to say about evolution?

That's too long for a bumper sticker.

Are you channeling Davidjay? You're beginning to sound just as irrational.

Welcome to the English language. Yes, definitions can vary according to context. You can use a knife for spreading butter or for open-heart surgery.That's no excuse for being confused. If you want to discuss any subject intelligently, it's up to YOU to understand the definitions in context. Mocking the definitions just makes you look like a fool.

There is a "fixed repertoire" in the sense that only a certain set of combinations are possible. But it's a really, really big set.Your task in rejecting evolution is to show why a subset of those possibilities would be fixed. For example, if the alphabet is your set of possibilities, you need to show why the combination AB is possible but the combination AC is not.

Hypothesizing would be a better word.And of course it is useful. For example, if the Theory of Evolution tells us that pigs and humans are related, we could hypothesize that pigs might be a useful source of insulin for diabetics. Would you care to test that hypothesis and get back to us?

But how would you know? If you didn't think there was any biological relationship between humand and pigs, how would you make the connection?Hint: Creationists didn't.

Creation is not a theory. It doesn't explain anything. All it does is claim that a giant invisible question mark created everything.

You have it backwards.I grew up in a very religious background. I was practically born in church. I could quote large swaths of the Bible literally before I could read. But as a teenager I tried to prove that the flood story was true and I discovered that it's impossible. The flood could not have happened.I have been sliding toward atheism (I won't admit to being there yet) BECAUSE of the lame attempts by religionists to prove the lie of creation.But you are right about there being no alternative to evolution. Creation isn't even a close second.

I wonder how many on that roster would be considered "true Christians" by YOU. You're famous for citing the accomplishments of Christians while conveniently forgetting that they were RC, CoE, etc. whom YOU don't consider real Christians.

Thanks for your honesty. Since you admit to being anti-science, I presume you agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes.