Replies

"You don't want to prove your point, you just like to be on the opposing side of the argument. I used to be that way too."

So why don't YOU show how "intelligent design" has successfully predicted ANY scientific discovery or piece of data. Evolutionary theory has and continues to do so.

It's up to the "challenger" theory to prove itself. Evolution is accepted science.

Um, belief in cration predated belief in evolution by, oh, I'd say, 5884 years. Evolution is in fact the challenger theory.

So why don't YOU show how "intelligent design" has successfully predicted ANY scientific discovery or piece of data. Evolutionary theory has and continues to do so.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine. The continuing pattern seems to be "oh yeah, well I'll one up you". Neither you, nor any of your fantasy believing cohorts can do what you are asking me to do. However, I can... Ready?

1. Science STILL cannot explain the sudden explosion of life on earth. Genesis, however, gives the only plausible explanation.

2. Prophetic Evidence: Still don't believe the Bible's true? The Bible records predictions of events that could not have been known or predicted by chance (a farcical nuance you evolutionist types seem to cling to) or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that various passages were written later than the biblical texts indicated because they recounted events that happened sometimes hundreds of years later than when they were supposedly written. They concluded that, subsequent to the events, literary editors went back and "doctored" the original, nonpredictive texts. But this is simply WRONG! Careful research AFFIRMS the predictive accuracy of the Bible. For example, the book of Daniel (written before 530 B.C.) ACCURATELY predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon through the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, and then the Roman Empire, culminating in the persecution and suffering of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom for the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (165 B.C.).
Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); it's walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and it's stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water(26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42, 43, 58; Isa. 13:20, 21).
Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber all others. Many of these prophecies would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill, such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of his hands and feet on the cross (Psalms 22:16); the soldiers gambling for His clothes (Psalms 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22).

Or how about Sir William Ramsay, a trained archaeologist who set out to disprove the historical reliability of the book of Luke? Through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as, one after another, the historical allusions of Luke were PROVED accurate! Truly, with every turn of the archaeologists spade, we continue to see evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Any more questions? Ask away...

It's up to the "challenger" theory to prove itself. Evolution is accepted science

BTW, evolution has always been, and still is the "challenger", no one on this thread has posted any evidence to the contrary.

"Evolution is accepted science."

You mean "adaptation," don't you?

As I've stated earlier:

Physicist Sir Fred Hoylecalculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. That my friend is a mathematical impossibility....

And FWIW: Between 1984 and 1994 about 400 papers concerning molecular evolution were published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. NOT ONE "proposed [any] detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed" -- NOR have any been offered in any other biological journal. (perhaps you or someone else can track one down done in the last ten years?)

It's at this basic level of life that Darwinism must be defended, but evolutionist "scholars" avoid the subject because they know it CAN'T BE DONE.