Replies

"Tempering one's biology curriculum by favoring the Big Etch-A-Sketch in the sky story to explain phenomena over tenets tested on the basis of observable evidence requires nothing more than faith and that is bad science."

Evolution does far more than that, if you are not aware. Evolution attempts to explain origins by stipulating a method by which the extravaganza of life on earth could come into being without a need for a supernatural act of a Creator. However, those methods remain unexplained at all the key moments, the most important of which being the actual origin of life itself. If you are concerned with the "observable evidence" then you should probably go out and find some to contradict what is otherwise completely and utterly fatal to the entire theory of evolution. Without a method for random natural processes to circumvent the as-yet observedly unbroken Law of Biogenesis, the theory of evolution is a mountain of speculation built on a sand castle to a degree that makes securities trading look like hard science.

To believe in spontaneous generation requires, in my opinion, far more faith than the creationist, for the creationist stipulates that forces were in action that cannot be explained or understood. The evolutionist asserts that the laws governing matter, energy, thermodynamics, and biology as we know them all today, were at multiple points apparently violated, yet not by a being that had the ability to do so (a Creator.) We are to believe they were simply violated in spite of all known observations to the contrary. That is not science. That is faith.

" The evolutionist asserts that the laws governing matter, energy, thermodynamics, and biology as we know them all today, were at multiple points apparently violated,"

They were not violated. That is only your claim, not the claim of the biologist.

" the theory of evolution is a mountain of speculation built on a sand castle to a degree that makes securities trading look like hard science."

Same thing. It's your claim, because you don't know the subject, let alone understand it.

Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago, writes:

The evolutionist asserts that the laws governing matter, energy, thermodynamics, and biology as we know them all today, were at multiple points apparently violated, yet not by a being that had the ability to do so (a Creator.) We are to believe they were simply violated in spite of all known observations to the contrary. That is not science. That is faith.

Somebody doesn't seem to know those laws very well. ALL of them have an element of probability involved: Yes, the Universe tends to go from order to randomness. But only AS A WHOLE, otherwise life is impossible: it would violate thermodynamics. Yes, if spontaneous generation had to occur, it was an exceptionally rare event. However, just as enough chimpanzees on enough typewriters will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare (and your average Howard Dean speech in a matter of days. . .), the several billion years and planet full of opportunities would raise the chance of an individually rare occurance to happen. . .to near certainty.

To believe in spontaneous generation requires, in my opinion, far more faith than the creationist, for the creationist stipulates that forces were in action that cannot be explained or understood. The evolutionist asserts that the laws governing matter, energy, thermodynamics, and biology as we know them all today, were at multiple points apparently violated, yet not by a being that had the ability to do so (a Creator.) We are to believe they were simply violated in spite of all known observations to the contrary. That is not science. That is faith.

Y'know, you could save a lot of time and simply post, "I wish to post easily refuted erroneous creationist blather here. since this has all been posted and answered several thousand times on FR alone, I'll let you, dear reader, respond as you would to typical easily refuted creationist blather. Good day."

Just cut and paste that paragraph and use it on every crevo thread henceforth. I am here to serve.

Evolution attempts to explain origins by stipulating a method by which the extravaganza of life on earth could come into being without a need for a supernatural act of a Creator.

Evolution attempts to explain speciation.That is what is taught in Biology 101. Discussion of the Big Bang and other epistomological ideas are better left to the physicists.