DefendingGenesis.org

Dude. Darwinism is a theory, just like gravitation. If you don’t like the theory of gravity, then go walk of a cliff.

Note that Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of scientific theory. It is still their. Yes it has got ‘gaps’ but any good theory has. At least we don’t pretend to know everything. Has creationism stood up to 150 years of scientific testing? I think not!

It is not an absurd comparison.

[Sirius: Yes, it is, as I've aply demonstrated to anyone who was actually paying attention. Why weren't you? Read it again.]

I was trying to point out that it is ABSURD that people quote ‘evolution is just a theory’ as if it was a bad thing.

[Sirius: You've not read much else around here, have you? I'm not implying that evolution being only a theory as if it's a bad thing; I'm saying that, as a theory, it is not an incontrovertible fact and is not automatically superior to competing theories like Creationism. In other words, you cannot simply tout that Darwin is a fact and be done with it. Instead, you must subject Darwinism and any competing theories to the same standard of critical analysis to see which one better fits the data. We all pool from the same data. I believe it can be demonstrated that Creationism accounts for more of the evidence than Darwin's theory, or at least accounts for the data equally well.]

I did read that article. It was… Interesting.

[Sirius: OK. You say that warily, like you just realized the author didn't have a chip in his brain like every good Darbot should.]

The similarities between chimpanzee and man are quite similiar because… maybe they evolved from the same common ancestor! a theory that has been tested.

[Sirius: First, I gotta say it. "The similarities... are quite similar..." Grammar police!

As for the assertion "maybe they evolved from the same ancestor! a theory that has been tested," well, it's really cute when they overstate their case like this. Wait for it...]

If we all have the same common ancestor, then we should all have the same number of chromosomes (chimps, humans, etc.).

[Sirius: Non sequitur. He's reading his conclusions into the data.]

They did genetic testing and saw that the 3 other species had 24 chromosomes, but we only had 23.

[Sirius: Since he's not being real specific here, let me clarify that he means 3 species of monkey had 24 chromosomes, while humans have 23.]

HOWEVER, further testing showed that chromosome 2 had merged with another chromosome.

[Sirius: Saying that they merged is an overstatement, because we cannot conclusively state that this is what happened. Creationism would posit that the Creator used common design elements when he made humans and homologous primates, but that He created humanity with a fused chromosome where a primate would have two separate chromosomes. It's all in how you look at it.]

Which means that we did share a common ancestor.

[Sirius: Or a common Designer]

This is their proof for evolution.

[Sirius: Demonstrably shaky, as "proof" goes. You appear a mite confused regarding the terms 'evidence' and 'proof.' 'Evidence' merely includes all the facts present. All evidence is not equal. Hearsay evidence, for example. Proof is “evidence that is so complete and convincing as to put a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.”]

Another thing people don’t seem to get is how slowly evolution occurs. Almost no-one can truly imagine it. Can you imagine even 10000 years ago?

[Sirius: Yes, I can imagine it. I write sci-fi, after all. What I can't do is watch macroevolution as it occurs for the self-same time restrictions you invoke. I can observe microevolution within baramins [created kinds] of animals, but it is purest speculation that we can put a sign of equality between macro- and microevolution, as Theodosius Dobzhansky insisted neo-darwinists must. No one has seen mac-evo occur and NO ONE CAN! Evidence we cannot observe is no evidence at all!]

Evolution theory is quite well established.

[Sirius: It is well accepted, but it is supported with little more than speculation and a high wall of protection. Yet we must honestly ask ourselves, Is it true?]

However, it is being frequently updated to suit new evidence.

[Sirius: A theory that can account for everything really explains nothing. The speculative nature of Darwinism makes it unfalsifiable. It's odd how the only thing that can be truly observed to evolve is the theory of evolution! They'll imagineer anything to keep their pet theory afloat!]

We don’t need more proof that the earth orbits the sun because we have without a doubt, proven it, and everyone believes it.

[Sirius: OK. No argument.]

The theory of evolution is still being constantly worked on.

[Sirius: I can only suppose that by "worked on," you more accurately mean "propped up" or "hastily repaired and adjusted with more ad hoc speculation."]

I will leave you with this comment:

[Sirius: Please do.]

CREATIONISM: BECAUSE GOAT HERDERS 3,000 YEARS AGO NO MORE ABOUT SCIENCE THEN WE DO.

[Sirius: You misspelled "know." [I know you're aware of it.] If you’re gonna make ambitious statements like the ones I usually make, you might want to spellcheck them first. I admire your zeal, but I AM a professional. Take it easy until you get the hang of it.

As for the argumentative statement, it’s a straw man on several counts.

1. You just insulted history. 3,000 years ago, Israel was being successively ruled by King Saul, David and then Solomon. The Temple of Solomon was built during this time. The Queen of Sheba heard such good reports of Israel that she came to investigate for herself. So much for the oversimplification of a “goat herder” nation.

2. You made a false analogy. Creationism isn’t true because anyone [in whatever period of history] knew more about science than we do now. The Jews didn’t make the Bible up. GOD gave it to them. The tue analogy is that GOD knows more about science than we will likely ever know.

But nice try.