The consequences of "Evolution is false"

What about parasites? Some can only be described as diabolical. Consider the Guinea Worm.404
http://seattlepi.nwsource./africa/worm23.shtml
Dracunculiasis - WikipediaOr hookworm, or whipworm, or pinworm, or heart worm, or liver fluke, or trichinosis, etc.These organisms are designed or adapted, depending on your view, to a very specific environment. For example the Guinea worm or liver fluke have a very complicated multi-step life cycle. You will need some complicated theory how these micro-evolved after the fall.Nearly half of creation are parasites. The designer had a thing for parasites.BTW parasites are to be expected if not demanded from a evolutionary view of life.If you want to credit their inspiration to some grand ID agent, then you must also consider that the ID agent may be partially evil. Oh yes evil in a human sense, but God made us in his image and imparted a sense of good and evil.

Cool I wish I had the power to suspend myself Evolved? Did I read evolved. So you are an evolutionist!All your postulates raise difficulties and more questions than they answer. But I will give it rest.

Faith suspended herself because she could see where the arguement was going. After her series of postulates the line of arguement was heading were she would have to defend the T. rex as a vegetarian - before the fall that is.

I would truly like to hear why you believe this here: Message 1Sure it all seems implausible when one studies life with its increadible detail, complexity and diversity - I will agree with you on this. However, transferring the responsibility of creation to a supreme being as described in the bible (especially the OT) seems to me a lot more far fetched. The God in the OT is described as very war like, possessed with human emotion and ethnocentric - hardly befitting a creator of the magnificance we see around us. I strongly disagree. For a scientist to tailor evidence to fit some pet theory would be grounds for excommunication from the scientific forum.The only way a creationist can be excommunicated is to question the central dogma of the faith even if such questions are backed with evidence. Further along these lines a scientist would achieve eternal fame if they could demonstate a prevailing theory false. Science could care less about making creationist or any other social religious group "look bad". If someone presented a paper with the intention to making some myth "look bad" that would be reason enough for it to be rejected.

NJ actually the creationist have already proved it by reading it in the inspired genesis acount. The gathering of evidence is only to support what has already been proven. This is not a distortion or exaggeration! I suspect you may not agree with this but I have encountered this line of reasoning before. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.