"What "Creation"?"
Yes, there are many myths, the Genesis Creation account stands up to scientific laws/principles.
"ignorant of scientific terminology and those trying to play dishonest semantic games."
This seems prevalent from the evolution side of this discussion. I don't clain to be an expert, but I am not totally ignorant or dishonest.
"Really? Could you elaborate on this, or do you think that simply asserting it and running off is sufficient to make a reasoned argument?"
On what do you base this "running off" theory? You need more data.
In a nutshell, Creation is more in line with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics than evolution. Something does not come from nothing and the organized tends toward disorganization.
The expanding universe shows it had a beginning and requires an outside source. "Chance" is unlikely, our planets and the life on it requires very specific conditions. There was a plan. There is adaptaion but not evolution. Genetic code does not allow reproduction outside of a species. Homology can show similarities but not relation.
> the Genesis Creation account stands up to scientific laws/principles.
Uhhh.... BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
Yes... plants before the sun.... sure thing....
>Creation is more in line with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics than evolution.
Hogwash. Evolution is entirely consistant with the laws of thermodynamics.
>Something does not come from nothing
Cosmogenesis is a separate discussion from organic evolution.
> and the organized tends toward disorganization.
Yes, in a global scale. And the *tiny* fraction of the Earth that has self-assembled into a more complex order has been powered by the heat in the Earth's core (which is cooling) and by the sun (which is burning out). The Earth's biosphere is NOT a closed energy system. There is substantial energy input from outside.
How do you define "species"? Are horses and donkeys different species? What about lions and tigers?