Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

I really hate it when people attack someone's post by pointing out problems in their typing / spelling / grammar, etc.However, I couldn't let this one go.Herep wrote: He mixed up Theory of Evolution and Creationism. Must have been posting late at night. Happens to the best of us

Herep writes: I may be wrong, but wouldn't that make Darwinists more in God's favor, since Adam and Eve didn't put on close until they ate from the forbidden fruit and got kicked out of Eden.Sounds like you're backing the wrong horse

Totally lost me on this one, Faith. I know we can't get too deep into this, since it's sorta off topic and kinda sciency, but it seems like you are saying"The more that a group changes, the less variablity there is within the group." That doesn't make sense to me. If you have 100 tennis balls, 50 are green, 50 are yellow, and you randomly paint 25 balls blue, you will have 3 diffenent sets of tennis balls and therefore more variability

How do you empirically substantiate that a prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled?Also, 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy? That's news to me. That would be news to Faith, and she knows a LOT more about the Bible than me. Which books of the old testament are about the future instead of the past? Which of the accounts of Jesus is about the future?It's not "Jesus will be crucified", it's "Jesus was cruicified".Additionally, where do you get this "much of which" bit. How much is much? It's more than some and less than most. Well, most would be 51%+, I'd think that some would be 25% or less. So "Much" should come in somewhere between 25-50%.Give us some examples of empirically proven prophecies. What track record? You haven't established one.Also, if someone is good at predicting the future, that doesn't make them good at predicting the past. But let's say that they are equally good at predicting the past.By your own account, the Bible only get's it right 25-50% of the time. So Noah either built and arc or he didn't. It's a coin toss. And we think that the Church is a harbor for pediphiles, sado-masocists and murderers.Only difference between our beliefs is that ours is based on history, yours is based on magic forces. What moral decline? Are we less moral today than during the 1920s? How about during slavery? How about during Conquest?And what are these "unsubstantiate religious doctrines"? If the Bible only get's it right 1/4 the time, that's pretty damn unsubstantiated. Not even close to being worth 2 cents.

While this quote may be technically correct, in that it represents what Whitcomb et al stated, I disagree with the sentiment.Darwin was not the only one working on Evolutionary theory at the time. Huxley could have just as easily published the theory - and to less controversy (since he was focused mainly on beetles as opposed to the entire field of biology).Evolution was a paradigmatic shift. It would have happened even if Darwin had never set sail. Maybe it would have been a year later. Maybe 10. But, it was an idea who's time had come

Fair enough, though I should let you know that most Biblical scholar recognize that most of what's in the Bible was put there in 1348.Don't ask me to go into details, like you I'm just making unfounded remarks.

Nope. Many Biblical Scholars openly admit that the oldest copies of what we now know as the Bible date to 1348."Older" copies were made to look older to trick people.Don't want to get off topic though