> I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest with my assertion that
> theistic evolutionists are both complacent and ill-informed in believing
> they can have both evolution and Christ.
There's nothing like the truth to bring protests from the wicked.
> It is clear from the exchanges
> I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
> faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
> interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
> attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,
> unfalsifiable.
I have a number of fundamental challenges to Evolutionists. If Evolution is
to
be considered scientific, these challenges must be met. So far, they haven't
come close.
One of those challenges is for them to describe a viable animal that cannot
be
explained by Evolution. Maybe Kevin O'Brian will again show us his measure
of
intelligence by again totally twisting plain and simple challenge as if he
needs
a remedial course in the English language.
Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a fat nothing
when
it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified. Darwin came up
with some
ways, and holding to Darwin's word, Evolution has been shown false (e.g.
there
aren't "innumerable" transitional forms in the fossil record.) But, because
Evolution is a nonscience, any time a prediction (no matter how fundamental
to
the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new theory
to
get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of Punctuated
Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory it
seeks
to save Evolution from).