Talk:World History Homework Ten Answers - Student Two

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page? To start, we need a definition for evolution. By evolution, I mean the biological process by which less complex organisms slowly become more complex. Of course I reject the standard, naturalistic Theory of Evolution.

But I don't see why creation must necessarily be direct, rather than through evolution. I already consider literal Adam and Eve and original sin to be foregone conclusions. My question is why living organisms need to be separately created. I want to understand why creationists reject this possibility. AddisonDM 16:21, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Several reasons for rejecting it:
  • it's virtually impossible to construct the complex from the simple. No one would build a car from a bicycle, for example.
  • evolution requires enormous time even if it were possible, time that contradicts evidence and the Bible
  • flooding, which is occurs often (and was referenced by Jesus), destroys any possibility of an evolutionary process
  • there are too many Counterexamples of Evolution for it to be plausible
  • why the urge to embrace an atheistic, deceit-ridden theory?
--Andy Schlafly 13:35, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
Those are reasons to reject the naturalistic theory of evolution. What about the process being God's means of creation, as suggested in Humani Generis? Also, Humani Generis allows belief in theistic evolution and thus by association also permits belief in an old earth.
Also, as far as I know, at least the Catholic Church does not require belief in a young earth. So when you combine old earth and the teachings of Humani Generis, is there anything wrong or deceiful about that? AddisonDM 18:19, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
Was there a Great Flood as cited by Jesus? Was there one Adam and one Eve as required by Christ's suffering, and emphasized by Humani Generis? The modern theory of evolution, naturalistic or theistic, is irreconcilable with each.
I reject the theory of evolution for the same reason I rejected life in outer space (when that was widely accepted by scientists) and global warming (which is widely promoted today): it's junk science, falsehoods promoted for political reasons. It has many flaws and makes no sense.
Could someone insist that theistic evolution occurred in an illogical way? It doesn't take long to ask specific questions about theistic evolution to see the flaws in it. For example, evolution depends on populations evolving. Was there one Adam or not, and how long ago did he live under theistic evolution? Was Adam created in God's image, or in animals' image? I'd be surprised if anyone can give you a straight answer to such obvious and simple questions.--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 20 April 2009 (EDT)