[Dimensio]

Well, I guess that you've thorougly refuted evolution by posting a quote from a man who has been dead 122 years ago. Certainly no one has found anything in the extremely short time since then.

[MacDorcha]

Well, I guess that you've thorougly refuted evolution by posting a quote from a man who has been dead 122 years ago.

why not? you guys "proved it" by a guy who died 122 years ago.

[Aquinasfan]

Certainly no one has found anything in the extremely short time since then.

The problems with evolutionary theory are pretty simple. If evolution happened gradually, why does the fossil record show uniform stasis within species?

If evolution happened in great leaps, by what mechanism could this have happened?

---

Another interesting problem with strict, materialistic evolution is the fact that it contradicts the first principle of medicine, the restoration of health to the body. How can health, or the proper operation of the body, be defined in an evolving life form? Logically, no species is fixed, but instead is in a state of perpetual evolution.

Who's to say if a disease isn't culling the herd? In fact, how could "disease" be defined under an evolutionary rubric? Are mutations good or bad? Would it even be possible to define a good or bad mutation?

[VadeRetro]

You have to wonder if Aquinas would have been an Aquinasfan fan. Not saying I know. I could go either way with it.

[BMCDA]

Well, I guess that you've thorougly refuted evolution by posting a quote from a man who has been dead 122 years ago. Certainly no one has found anything in the extremely short time since then.

Except this quote in a quote mine ;^)