Does evolution contradict creationism?

No Scott had something working against him, can you figure that out?

No they are not, so than at one time the big science theory was the earth was flat, didn't make it so.

I haven't yhe time to disprove the Big Bang, but I am sure if you think outside the box you can come up with the answer.

Clue, reactions of objects in an explosion.

You wrote: "However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time." This is the sort of blind and stupid thinking believers in evolution fall into. First it is man that observes the rock strata with certain fossils in them. Because we know rocks were laid down over time we can say bones in lower courses are older...so what? It just means life at that time died at that time and was fossilized. But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches). It is only because you wear evolutionists glasses that you LABEL a previous era of life as more primitive than a later era. That something appeared earlier in the fossil record in no way means it is MORE PRIMITVE than later life of similar morphology, it is simply the labeling game of evolutionists. I can just as well say that different life was created in successive ages and the fossil record bears witness to my interpretation far better than yours, as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know? It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right! This theory falls in on itself by the weight of its own illogic and contradictory causes and effects. Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink). All the while it is subject to the same ruthless competion that started the process, but it is no longer an efficient fish, and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass? And they do this for the required million years or so? Freaking ridiculous crap parading as science. Only those that want to find anything, believe anything, but in the immediate creative power of God would buy into this junk.

"I haven't yhe time to disprove the Big Bang, but I am sure if you think outside the box you can come up with the answer.
Clue, reactions of objects in an explosion."

This is great evidence that many people here are claiming to disprove science they don't even understand.
General Misconception: The Big Bang was an explosion.
Cosmology 101: The Big Bang was NOT an explosion.

What than was it if not a big bang?

I would seriously divorce discussion of the Big Bang with a discussion of Evolution. The science behind the Big Bang is very good science. There is no contradiction to the Biblical account that the material universe came into existence in a moment of time, as the Big Bang evidence indicates. Look at Genesis 1:1 It is not hard to see that verse AS the Big Bang event. The Bible then skips 12 billion years of development through physical laws and jumps to the re-population/renewal of the earth. As formless and void (tofu/bofu) in the Hebrew indicates that the earth already existed but under a roiling chaotic condition after some Divine Judgment in a bygone era. The Bible leaves many things out and that is for man and his science to explore. But evolutionary theory is another matter. Probably the weakest scientific theory of all time, yet the most widely hyped and believed. Only because it offers an alternative to believing in God. And cloaks itself as part of the new religion of "science." I mean, who is going to suspect a priest wearing a labcoat? That is why it is so emotionally held and fought for. Yet nobody gets emotional over REAL science, imagine emotional arguments about chemistry, or physics?

"But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches)."

There is clear indication. First life does not continue on the same. Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.
Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.
Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution.
Intermediate fossil forms found between ages of two other fossils are plenty indication of evolution. As demanded and predicted by evolution. Antievolutionists charge evolutionists with worshiping probability and chance but here they are doing the same thing. Think of the small odds that the fossils unearthed continually fill gaps between two already found fossils and further develop an evolutionary tree if evolution has not actually occured.

"as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know?"
Noone has witnessed the life cycle of a star directly, but from the sequences of all other stars we see in the universe there is a pattern and we can derive a theory of the life cycle. I imagine you deny our sun is a transitional star because you claim HOW DO WE KNOW?

"It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right!"
Sure, but finding several species of such lizard birds in the area of the fossil record that evolution demands such things to exist is just too coincidental. Juries have convicted people to death based on less evidence.

"Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink)."
Actually fish didn't need to grow legs, they just ADAPTED (microevolved) their fins which already had the same bone structure anyway.
Also "survival of the fittest" is a popular phrase, it has no meaning in evolutionary theory. Perhaps you meant to say Natural Selection? Your argument is a joke because it isn't even a big change for fins to turn into legs, considering that muscular fins would do the job of a transitional.

"and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

I would love to hear your theory on how the earliest fossil land animals are ampibeans and not say mammals,birds or reptiles. Seems to me that life from the sea is a far better explaination for the observed facts.

and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?

Your Natural Selection is just the Politically Correct name evolutionists (who love labels instead of real science) gave to the old adage "Nature red in tooth and claw). The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games.

There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right. All else is just the evolutionist's viewpoint. A dedicated viewpoint that evolution MUST have happened, the alternative (Special Creation) is simply anathema to the evolutionist's mind. If you have a preconceived viewpoint then you will simply interpret any data you find to fit that viewpoint...an action of faith, not science!

The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment. If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so! On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other.

There is no contradiction to the Biblical account that the material universe came into existence in a moment of time, as the Big Bang evidence indicates.

Two Questions:

According to the Scriptures, which came first, Earth or the stars and planets?

According to BBT, which came first the stars and planets or Earth?

As formless and void (tofu/bofu) in the Hebrew indicates that the earth already existed but under a roiling chaotic condition after some Divine Judgment in a bygone era.

Where do you see "Divine Judgement" and "bygone era" in tofu/bofu? A considerable amount of eisegesis?

Why do you reject the gospel where death came to the Creation via Adam's sin?

The Gap Theory has more and bigger gaps in it than Plain Ol' Atheistic Evolution

Gap Theory is in the reference section of the old Chain-Link-Reference. Some people still haven't discovered that the footnotes aren't in the original.

Why can't all of Gen 2 be one day?

Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.

Just like a poodle is a "intermediate" to a Great Dane.

Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.

Creationists believe in a Global Flood which goes much further in explaining the instant appearance of fossils over the wacked out "theories" of evolution. When I go SCUBA diving, I don't see the bottom of the ocean littered with the fully intact bones of fish. Does this mean that fish never die? No, it means that evolutionists have never been outside and observed the fact that when fish die, they are consumed by other aquatic critters, not left to lie on the ocean floor undisturbed for thousands of years while waiting to get buried in sediment.

Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution

This is called "hurling elephants" when you take a complex issue and assume as fact that which needs to be proved.

I take the GAP theory as credible and it matches the meaning of the Hebrew Words for formless and void. Tofu/Bofu are used rarely in the Old Testament, there are other words that could of been used.

They always imply the devastation AFTER a Divine judgment. I think Genesis 1:1 is the physical creation of the universe by the Word of God..."In the beginning (of time) God created the Heavens and the Earth (Big Bang) All energy and matter were created.

God was interested in the story of man and his redemption in the Bible. Unlike man, God gets right to the point. In verse two we skip billions of years to about 6 thousand years ago. The earth is roiling through its orbit...destroyed, shrouded in clouds (interstellar?) Now God says "let there be light" And the rest of the account does not use the Hebrew word for a new creation...but recreation, or restoration.

God spends one verse on the creation of the universe, and the rest of the Bible on the creation of man, his fall, the search for the seed, and his redemption. We can find out about the physical laws of the universe on our own...he gave us intellects for that.

All science, so far as I am concerned, is simply the discovery, by man, of EXISTING law. Science never developed in China, or India. It could only flourish in a culture that had accepted the fact of a creator God. (Christianized Europe) And still could not really flourish under spiritual darkness, (The Roman Apostasy) but scientific truth was realized after the release of spiritual truth in the reformation. Truth is unified across spiritual and physical boundaries. Ignore spiritual truth? Watch the world plunge into superstition and darkness. As it did when it rejected the truth of Christ.

If God created the universe and its laws, then it could be discerned by man. Most, if not all, of the early great scientists were believers! Something idiot evolutionists conveniently forget. Darwin could not have shined the shoes of Newton, and Newton was almost fanatical in his belief in God.

Subconsciously evolutionists know this, that is why they buried Darwin next to Newton's tomb...as if to confer upon this faker, the glory and intellect of a Newton. According to BBT The stars are first, then planets condense from clouds around their stars. This is not in conflict with scripture if you take the meaning of formless and void...just exactly as the Hebrew intends. For a better treatment go to www.custance.org, or find an old book by G.H. Pimber "Earth's Earliest Ages." I would not just dismiss the GAP theory out of hand, nor would I dismiss the BBT. The cosmic background radiation, and physical laws that we can observe are very strong in support of that theory. Not to mention the expansion of the universe etc...

I don't have a copy of Pimber's "Earth's Earliest Ages" anymore so I cannot quote verbatim. But he was an extraordinary Hebrew and Biblical Scholar of the 19th century. His study of the Hebrew in the first chapters of Genisis is unequaled from an age of real scholarship.

I do not reject the truth of original sin through Adam. It did destroy THIS creation, of which you and I are a part. But how would you know if God has not tried to bring about a creation on this planet more than once? And if the earth was reeling under Divine Judgment, we know Divine Judgment only comes for one thing...Sin!
You have no way of knowing, except by Revelation, if God has tried to bring about something on this earth before Adam, and Satan perverted those creations. The fossil record certainly shows there have been major huge extinctions in the past.
The most famous is the Dinosaur extinction about 70 million years ago, probably by a comet, or asteroid near the Yucatan Peninsula. And the great cataclysmic event that actually froze Mastadons while in a running pose in Siberia. Even as late as 1890's natives were digging ivory out of cliffs along a northern Siberian river and selling them on the open market. As if millions of animals had been picked up by a great wave and crashed into these cliffs.
That was probably the event on the earth that preceded the creation of Adam. And of course there was the flood of Noah, in a near extinction event for mankind. Once again because of sin. Don't be so closed-minded, that is the job of evolutionists. :-)

OF COURSE EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN TO ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!! That comment was a reminder for Reubin Hick. I can assure you I'm not a party to their nonsense. Any explanation of science only invites more ridicule from them, creationists are alot like liberals, they feel threatened by any rational challenge to their views. Okay, end of rant.

"No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?"
Well fish like that used to exist as shown by fossil evidence. Besides fish that move along the bottom of shallows exist to this day and they have not been all eaten by the real fish that are better adapted to swimming.

"The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games."
It is more the competition for survival to reproduce. I only raised issue with the phrase "survival of the fittest" because when people use it they imply that fitness is determined by strength.

"There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right."
Your opinion. The vast majority of paleontologists and biologists do not share it.

"The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment."
Gaps between species are filled by....fossil transitional forms! That is all you can demand to be found.

"If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so!"
Thats rubbish where did you get that from? Human hemoglobin is closer to primate hemoglobin than any other order of animal.

"On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other."
It's all about burden of evidence. And when similar animals are laid out in a chain of development in the fossil record, rather than being randomly sorted, then it implies change over time. The fact that phylogenetic trees drawn up using genetic data generally match the fossil trees drawn up using fossil data is far too much of a coincidence.

"Creationists believe in a Global Flood which goes much further in explaining the instant appearance of fossils over the wacked out "theories" of evolution."

I am not debating creationists. I am debating anti-evolutionists. If you want to propose your own potential theory other then please detail the predictions that it makes in terms of the properties of future fossil finds. What sort of forms should be discovered where in the fossil record according to your theory. If it cannot predict then its useless.

"No, it means that evolutionists have never been outside and observed the fact that when fish die, they are consumed by other aquatic critters, not left to lie on the ocean floor undisturbed for thousands of years while waiting to get buried in sediment."
It only requires 1 in a million fish to be buried you know. Probably even less than that.

The fish that are not good swimmers now have defense mechanisms, did your proto-amphib have defense mechanisms? If so what? How would you know from fossil evidence? What a wonderful theory that provides all answers before they are asked!

And when a creationists asks for detailed evidence of preposterous claims made by evolutionists we are told such things were NOT preserved by the fossil record...how convenient.

"There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right."

Your opinion. The vast majority of paleontologists and biologists do not share it.

Gee I wonder if they have a vested interest?

Gaps between species are filled by....fossil transitional forms! That is all you can demand to be found.

Name one! Give me an identified transitional species between two known and distinct species!

"If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so!"
Thats rubbish where did you get that from? Human hemoglobin is closer to primate hemoglobin than any other order of animal.

WRONG! Not only is it closer to some turtles, think of this, they are not even mammals. For reference the book is called "Darwin was Wrong" Put out by some biologists probably 30 years ago, I forget the authors names. Funny thing is that this book kept disappearing from the library stacks at the University I attended. The University would keep buying it, but some (fair-minded) evolutionists must not have liked its utterly damning evidence that micro-evolution does not follow any Darwinian model.

"And when similar animals are laid out in a chain of development in the fossil record, rather than being randomly sorted, then it implies change over time. The fact that phylogenetic trees drawn up using genetic data generally match the fossil trees drawn up using fossil data is far too much of a coincidence."

So what? Mankind sorts and categorizes, that we would based on morphology should surprise nobody. Just because we sort animals into forms and types does not mean they descended from one to the other. You have no idea what so ever if paleo-horses are related in anyway to modern horses. Just the imagination of evolutionary artists.

Tell me if horses got longer and longer legs cause sabertooth was chasing them...how come the tigers didn't get longer legs to catch them?