[tjg]

"a large amount of literature exists against the theory."

None of it science though. Which is sort of the point.

This anti-evolution thing is like the Clintons. There is an overwealming body of evidence that they are twisted meglomaniacs that care about nothing except power, yet millions of people all over the world think they are decent, caring people.

They don't see the facts because they won't look at them.

[rdb3]

They don't see the facts because they won't look at them.

Whether you adhere to this theory or not is your business. What I want to know from you is do you agree with this professor. Not his evolution stance, but his making the "belief" in evolution a requirement.

[Kevin Curry]

None of it science though.

There is much science, especially statistical/mathematic, against it. That the universe had a beginning--and a mere 12-18 billion years ago--is profoundly powerful evidence in support of Genesis and against Darwin's "just so--something from nothing" stories.

Honest evolutionists far better informed and more intelligent than you privately admit the gross inadequacies of their so-called theory to explain how life got started so quickly in such a young universe. "Negative entropy" (not thermodynamic, but Shannon-informational) is a physical miracle beyond their skills to even begin to explain in any way, shape, or fashion.

You are insufficiently intelligent to know the grave flaws of your own materialist absolutist faith. Or, you lack sufficient understanding. Or both.

You choose.

[DallasMike]

None of it science though. Which is sort of the point.

Oh, puh-leeze. Evidently you define "science" as something that supports your narrow world-views.

[Quix]

MUCH AGREE WITH YOUR POINTS EXCEPT:

None of it science though. Which is sort of the point.

I believe plenty of the evidence is MUCH BETTER SCIENCE than the religion of science defending evolution. There are outlandish statements on both sides. But actually, I believe the better science is on the side of those who say the traditional evolutionary scenarios are at best exceedingly lacking as a thorough explanation for what we find.

I believe evolution will be done in by the globalist people coming along and insisting, probably with some ET help, that ET's seeded the earth with engineered progenators etc.

Somehow, God will have the last laugh.

As my dissertation chairman [a Mormon bishop] said when I asked him how he handled the different versions of the Book of Mormon [which wasn't supposed to have been ever revised] and he said--LIFE IS SO COMPLEX, JUST ABOUT ANY COCK-A-MAYMEE IDEA WILL DO.

Nevertheless, The Bible will end up proven true every jot and tittle--whether we know conclusively what each and every word meant in the original and from God's perspective or not.

[riggedtosail]

Quite the opposite. A growing body of evidence is beginning to prove a young earth from a scientific standpoint, which then leads to disprove the theory of evolution. Funny, I ran into a well thought of heart surgeon a few months back and he mentioned that there had to be a creator. Just the complexities of how the human heart works is enough justification for him. I guess he wouldn't make it to med school now.

[JavaTheHutt]

None of it science though. Which is sort of the point

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Check your facts. Do a google search on 'scientific evidence against evolution' and see how much information you can find. Do another google search on 'scientific evidence supporting creation' and see how much information you find.

The problem is, the majority of people who believe the fiction of evolution tend to come from the liberal right. And everyone knows that you can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

[lasereye]

"a large amount of literature exists against the theory."

None of it science though. Which is sort of the point.

Since there are numerous scientists who dispute evolution theory, you obviously have no familiarity with any of the anti-evolution arguments. You remind me of a poster a few weeks back who asserted that evolutionists employed the scientific method in their analysis of fossils, which they don't. Turned out he didn't even know what the scientific method was.

[The Person]

Exactly. Not believing in evolution is the sort of irrational thinking, of believing what you want to believe, that gives us the Clintons.

In labs, they stress bacteria and grow resistant strains all the time. Anyone with access to a lab could do it in a few weeks. Experiments that tend to support natural selection are done all the time.

That said, one shouldn't have a litmus test, but diclosing in a recommendation that the student is someone who puts faith above science is relevant to a program that would admit him.

[discipler]

Open your eyes. The Clinton family is a bad, dysfunctional family. Reference the most recent article by Dick Morris where Hillary is shown to have lied about gifts. They are immoral, unscrupulous, and just plain evil. Open your eyes and see the truth. Evolution doesn't explain the complexity of life. A believer in Evolution believes in a greater miracle than the resurrection from the dead.

[discipler]

Open your eyes. The Clinton family is a bad, dysfunctional family. Reference the most recent article by Dick Morris where Hillary is shown to have lied about gifts. They are immoral, unscrupulous, and just plain evil. Open your eyes and see the truth. Evolution doesn't explain the complexity of life. A believer in Evolution believes in a greater miracle than the resurrection from the dead.