Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Brother Mike]

Brother Mike,

'Faith comes by hearing the word of Christ' is from Rom 10:17 (SBL Greek) which reads, ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ.

What does ῥήματος (from rhema) mean? Seems to me that you are missing the meaning of 'logic'. Unless one uses logical processes, there is no way to understand the meaning of a stated sentence.

We can't have a discussion about the the meaning of the construction 'faith comes by hearing' unless we use logical reasoning.

'Logic is to language and meaning as mathematics is to physical science. In order to understand how sentences – which are what compose language – work, it is necessary to learn to find their logical structure' (source).​

Therefore, to understand what the Scriptures state, even 'faith comes by hearing the word of Christ', we cannot chuck out logic. Logic is integral to understanding anything we say, hear or read.

Oz

We don't use Logic to understand scriptures. Was it logical to defeat an enemy by marching around the walls 7 times?
Is it logical to think that your answer to be healed of Leprosy is to go show yourself to the priest who only check if you think your cured.
Is it logical to serve water to guest when they asked for wine?

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
(Pro 3:5-7)

1Co_1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Where does our logic come in to understand spiritual things?

1Pe_1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Man is designed to believe, not use their logic. Man's logic is based on what He already believes because that is how man is created.

This is why you can show someone something 20 times as being right, but if that is not what they want to believe, your spinning your wheels because logic does not appeal to us when we have already believed a certain way.

Logic can only be used to set fourth a belief if a belief has yet been fully formed.

A man is better if He says, that since God said it, then it's so. My understanding is unfruitful, let the Lord reveal it to me.

Mike.

 

[Runner]

Thank you for the red herring.

Yes, the OP is committing logical fallacies left and right while attempting to point out the danger of committing logical fallacies! (I am sure most of us have seen the laundry list of logical fallacies that appears on many critical thinking sites. Some of the supposed fallacies are so broad and ill-defined that it is difficult to write or say more than 50 words without "committing" one. Some are genuine errors in logic and should be pointed out, but others have no effect on the validity of an argument - pointing them out becomes little more than a game in one-upmanship.)

Back to the evolutionary science discussion: I did not "poison the well" by suggesting that "scientists" assume atheism. The OP concerned evolutionary science, and my response concerned evolutionary scientists. It is a simple fact - not fallacy - that the evolutionary science paradigm has a naturalistic, materialistic, non-supernatural universe as its foundation. That is what the paradigm is. There is no room in the paradigm for God, period. Scientists like Francis Collins who promote theistic evolution are outliers - they do not fit comfortably within evolutionary science or mainstream Christianity.

Intelligent Design is not attempting to "introduce theology" into science. The proponents of ID are attempting to introduce observable, verifiable evidence from which an Intelligent Designer might reasonably be inferred as an alternative to mindless, random evolution. The designer is not inevitably the God of Christianity. ID in the abstract has no "theology" associated with it at all. The evidence from ID is "inadmissible" not because it is unscientific but because it is contrary to the naturalistic, materialistic, non-supernatural paradigm that serves as the foundation of evolutionary science. This evidence does not mandate a non-materialistic, supernatural cause - but it is consistent with such a cause and thus is simply "inadmissible" for those who are wedded to evolutionary science. Most proponents of ID are indeed Christians, but this is merely an additional reason any attempt to discuss the observable, verifiable evidence for ID is like waving a red flag in front of a bull for those wedded to the evolutionary paradigm.

If science operated in practice as it is supposed to in theory, evolutionary scientists would welcome the opportunity to confront the evidence from ID and confirm or refute it. They would not shun it like the plague - but this is not how science operates in the real world. It has become a cliché to cite Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but what Kuhn described in 1962 is precisely what we see today as those wedded to evolutionary science cling to their paradigm in the face of mounting evidence to support the ID paradigm. Stephen Meyer is not attempting to "introduce theology" into science; he is using the fossil record from the Cambrian explosion to challenge natural selection as the best explanation.

There is indeed no room for "theology" in "science." They are different disciplines. But there is room for observable, verifiable evidence that is consistent with an Intelligent Designer and inconsistent with the naturalistic, materialistic, non-supernatural ruling paradigm. By suggesting that all scientists proceed dispassionately - which it has repeatedly been demonstrated they do not - and that ID represents an attempt to introduce theology into science - which it does not - the OP has made additional logical errors.

I would suggest this well-intentioned thread has gone so far off the track in its goal of educating people about logical fallacies that it should be abandoned.

 

[Runner]

By identifying all scientists with the negative connotation of "atheists", the well was poisoned.

Ah, but that isn't what I did:

Evolutionary science "assumes" atheism. Atheism is its foundation. In a perfect world, science would indeed proceed dispassionately, without regard to where the evidence leads. But this is not how evolutionary science proceeds. If it were, proponents of evolution within the scientific community would at least give the proponents of Intelligent Design and the most highly qualified critics of evolution, such as Stephen Meyer, a fair hearing.

All scientists do not accept evolutionary science. Stephen Meyer is a scientist. Michael Behe is a scientist. The evolutionary science paradigm is rejected by legions of scientists.

 

[Nathan]

Nathan,

Paul also was speaking of the gospel. What did he do?

• 'As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures' (Acts 17:2 NIV);
• 'As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures' (Isa 1:18 NASB);
• 'Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ"' (Acts 17:1-3 NASB).

What did Isaiah do?

• 'Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool' (Isa 1:18 ESV).
  
• 'Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right' (Isa 43:26 NASB).

So were Paul and Isaiah off the mark when they reasoned with the people, argued their cases? Paul was so audacious as to reason with the unbelieving Jews from the Scriptures.

Oz

Not at all. what did they use to reason with people? I reason with people all the time. Most call it arguing or debating. But I use the Bible to do so.

Maybe we need a forum called "reasoning". Lol

 

[Runner]

oi veh - where to begin......
(1) Please go look up the meaning of the word "science" in a modern dictionary. That's what we're talking about, not the "science" of the ancient world which defined the four elements as earth, wind, fire and water. The modern meaning of the word "science" did not exist 3500 years ago.
(2) Israelites were never Bedouin. (Nomadic Arabs)
(3) There is not one single scientific statement in Genesis 1.

Your logical fallacy is essentially a straw man in which you have misrepresented the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which is presented in Genesis 1 as science. That is a false equation.


(1) "in the beginning" refers to being before time existed since time did not exist until God created space-time.
(2) That God is the creator of all things visible and invisible is not a scientific fact since nothing of that truth can be proven by the application of scientific methods.

Are you suggesting that you are fluent in reading the "original Hebrew pictographs"?
Are you suggesting that you have studied Gen. 1 as it was written in he "original Hebrew pictographs"?
Pardon me if I am a bit skeptical.
The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Old Testament (Dead Sea Scrolls) are from 2100 to 2200 years old and are written in ancient Hebrew, not Hebrew pictographs.

And the thread is about logical fallacies.

iakov the fool

Eek, the appeal to ridicule fallacy, appeal to modernity fallacy, argumentum ad hominem fallacy and appeal to the dictionary fallacy all in the same post!

Please, keep educating us - this is fun!

 

[jasonc]

Not at all. what did they use to reason with people? I reason with people all the time. Most call it arguing or debating. But I use the Bible to do so.

Maybe we need a forum called "reasoning". Lol

Ever see math and the order of it to point To God?

 

[Nathan]

Ever see math and the order of it to point To God?

Interesting question.

Everything I see points to God.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Notice the writer does not say reason or by experiment. Faith is unseen evidence and understanding beyond human capability.

 

[Runner]

This thread actually has turned into somewhat of an illustration as to how Christians go awry when tackling a subject like evolution. The Bible does posit the direct creation of humans by God. There is no suggestion whatsoever of an evolutionary process. If one is going to take the Biblical account of direct creation as being factually true (as I do), the evolution of humans and all other primates from some common ancestor is off the table. If evolution (meaning macroevolution) were to be conclusively proven, then those who continued to cling to the Biblical account of direct creation as factually true (as many undoubtedly would) would be in the same position as those who continue to insist the earth is flat even though science has conclusively established it is not. This would not inevitably mean that Christianity was false by any means.

Reliance on the Bible as the ultimate source of truth is fine within the Christian community. Christians start with the premise that evolution is false because the Bible, our ultimate authority, indicates the direct creation of humans by God. But the Bible in and of itself carries no weight at all within the scientific community, nor should it. Appeals to Biblical authority are simply misguided and serve only to show that those who appeal to the Bible do not understand the nature of the debate.

The evolution of humans is a purely scientific question. Humans either evolved or they did not. Science theoretically might establish to a certainty that they did. Intelligent Design (and related avenues of investigation) theoretically might establish to a certainty that they did not. It is as misguided to say “We know humans did not have a supernatural creator because our materialistic, naturalistic paradigm will not allow one” as it is to say “We know evolution did not occur because our Biblical creation paradigm will not allow it.” Maybe the materialistic, naturalistic paradigm is wrong – or maybe the Biblical one is.

Evolutionary scientists theoretically should be open to the possibility that their materialistic, naturalistic paradigm is wrong. The evidence from Intelligent Design, consciousness studies and other avenues of investigation suggests the evolutionary scientists’ paradigm may indeed be wrong; this would not establish a direct route to God, but it would open the door. But most evolutionary scientists are not open to this possibility, any more than most Christians are open to the possibility the Biblical account of direct creation could be wrong.

If the Biblical account of direct creation is in fact wrong, Christians likewise should be open to this possibility. It is no badge of honor to cling to some Biblical “truth” in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, although Flat Earthers seem to think it is.

There is not overwhelming scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. There is not overwhelming evidence of macroevolution either. The question is still open. But the debate should take place at the level of evidence, not at the level of paradigms. At this point, we Christians are justified by the evidence in holding to our Biblical creation paradigm; evolutionary scientists are likewise justified in holding to their random, natural selection paradigm. The real fallacy is in screaming “Evolution is false because my Biblical creation paradigm won’t allow it, and thus I don’t even need to consider your evidence!” or “There cannot be a supernatural designer because my naturalistic, materialistic paradigm won’t allow one, and thus I don’t even need to consider your evidence!” Believers and atheists alike just embarrass themselves with these latter sorts of arguments.

If macroevolution is established to a scientific certainty, Christians who insist on holding to direct creation only because “the Bible says so” will certainly be entitled to do so, but they will rightly be viewed by the rest of the world as being as misguided as the Flat Earthers. If Intelligent Design is established to a scientific certainty, those who insist that there cannot possibly be a supernatural designer will expose that they are not really scientists at all and that their materialistic, naturalistic paradigm is simply a religion in its own right. (Science alone will never establish who the Intelligent Designer is, because this is a metaphysical question beyond the scope of science. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once suggested humans might have been “created” or genetically engineered by aliens; unlike a supernatural creator, aliens would be susceptible to scientific investigation and proof.)

Beyond this, I think the entire discussion of “logical fallacies” is misguided. As this thread has demonstrated, those who make it their mission to expose others’ logical fallacies typically commit just as many themselves. We all do this. It is much easier to point out others’ errors in logic than to recognize our own.

 

[jasonc]

Interesting question.

Everything I see points to God.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Notice the writer does not say reason or by experiment. Faith is unseen evidence and understanding beyond human capability.

Why are you using grammar, logic,and things of the earth to teach others about the Lord?so we shouldn't use History to show Jesus was a man? Your are contradicting yourself.I believe God us real,why because he is isnt an argument. One can use logic to point out there is A diety and go from there.

 

[Runner]

Ever see math and the order of it to point To God?

Yes, but we can't have our cake and eat it too.

The fact that the universe operates according to natural laws and shows so much evidence of design, together with the fact that we have been blessed with minds capable of discovering those laws and investigating and analyzing that evidence of design, is indeed one of the strongest arguments for a Creator and for humans' special place in His creation.

However, when (to take an obvious example) it becomes obvious from our investigation and analysis that the earth is spherical and was required by the laws of nature to be spherical, we cannot then say "Forget about all that - the Bible says it's flat, so it's flat." The same is true with evolution, if it is ever established to the same level of scientific certainty as the shape of the earth.

 

[dianegcook]

Creation vs Evolution
Gen.1
Ascribes everything to the living God,
Creating, making, acting, moving and speaking.
There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation.
One must be true, the other false.
Man begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution.
This is only in human affairs, from the hut to the palace ,from the canoe to the ocean liner.

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things.
No one of these theories covers all the ground, and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, covers more ground than any others.
The Word of God claims to cover all the ground, and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it.
This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism" which bases it's conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of manuscripts, as Textual Criticism does.

 

[dianegcook]

Also, I do not believe in young earth.

I believe this earth could be millions years old.
I believe there are 3 earth and heaven ages.
1st
I believe we all were created in spiritual form, like the angels.
Satan use to guard the mercy seat, but rebelled, and also a third of the angels.
We were here on the earth also in spiritual form, with the dinosaurs and other species.
The earth then was like in a water bubble.Gen.1:7
God was angry and shook the earth, now the earth tilts on its axis at 23, 1/2 degrees.
God could had destroyed these beings then, but loved His children so much, that He has given us, them, a chance, to be born of flesh also, as God was to shed blood for our redemption.
To decide on whom we will serve, Satan, or God.
As in Gen.1:1
God created heaven and earth, period.
Then I believe a gap here in Gen.1:2
The earth was, became that way, without form and void.
Was,Strong's #1961, Hebrew, hayah, meaning to exist, be or become.
This is when the dinosaurs and other species were destroyed.
As one can see also in Jer.4:23-27
I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void, and the heavens, and they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
I beheld, and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the heavens fled.
I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger...
2nd
This is the age we are in now.
The test...
3rd
Which is to come, with all evil destroyed.
My 2 cents:nod

 

[Runner]

Creation vs Evolution
Gen.1
Ascribes everything to the living God,
Creating, making, acting, moving and speaking.
There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation.
One must be true, the other false.
Man begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution.
This is only in human affairs, from the hut to the palace ,from the canoe to the ocean liner.

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things.
No one of these theories covers all the ground, and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, covers more ground than any others.
The Word of God claims to cover all the ground, and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it.
This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism" which bases it's conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of manuscripts, as Textual Criticism does.

As originally conceived by the OP, the thread was really not about the truth or falsity of Biblical creationism or evolution. It was about the way in which the debate is conducted (and specifically the way it is conducted by Christians).

When the Bible makes a claim about the natural world or an event in history, that claim is subject to scientific investigation and verification. This is what science does: investigates and attempts to explain the natural world. We should celebrate the fact that God has created a universe susceptible to scientific investigation and blessed us with the intellectual ability to investigate it.

When science accumulates a massive body of evidence that is inconsistent with a Biblical claim, we have a problem. We can say, "I don't care what the evidence shows. I am going to believe the Bible. If the evidence conflicts with the Bible, then ipso facto the evidence must be wrong." This is what the Flat Earthers do. (The Flat Earthers not only have no evidence to support their position, they don't even have a clear Biblical claim the earth is flat.)

Or we can say, "Perhaps we have misunderstood the Biblical claim. Perhaps it can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the massive body of scientific evidence."

Or we can say, "Perhaps the Biblical claim was not intended to be factually or historically true. Perhaps it was intended solely to express a spiritual truth."

With something like the Resurrection, which the Bible clearly asserts to have been a bodily resurrection at a specific time in history, I don't see any wiggle room. If science claims to have conclusively identified the bones of Jesus, the Christian response has to be either "No, you haven't, you are simply wrong" or "OK, you've convinced me Christianity isn't true." As Paul recognized, Christianity stands or falls with the literal, historical truth of the Resurrection. There is really no way to say "OK, maybe it never happened and Jesus did decompose like everyone else, but it still expresses a spiritual truth." What would that "spiritual truth" be?

With the description of the creation of Adam, the Bible certainly seems to make a pretty definite factual and historical claim about the creation of the first human. It is difficult to see a way to reinterpret the Genesis account to accommodate evolution. But if evolution were conclusively established, I could certainly see a way to reinterpret the story of Adam and Eve as expressing solely spiritual truths. (I already believe 90% of the importance of the story of Adam and Eve is to be found in the realm of spiritual truth, not historical truth - and this is the case even if the story is historically true.) If evolution were true, the story of Adam and Eve would still express the truths that humans are creatures who have rebelled against God and are estranged from Him. I would not go so far as to say "There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation."

The point I think the OP was making - and the point I would make anyway - is that we need to confront and debate the evidence for evolution on its own terms, as being scientifically true or scientifically false. Whether evolution is true or false is 100% a scientific question. The best evidence from Intelligent Design, consciousness studies and other scientific disciplines suggests evolution may be false, which leaves us with reason to believe the Biblical account may be factually and historically true. Coming at it from the angle that "It can't be true because that would be inconsistent with what [I believe] the Bible teaches" is not going to further the discussion. It's exactly what an atheist does when he says "Intelligent Design can't be true because my Bible of Materialism rules out an intelligent designer."

 

[Silmarien]

God is simply not part of the evolutionary science paradigm; He cannot, and is not, allowed a foot in the door. Evolutionary science is absolutely hostile to evolution. "Theistic evolution" is an oxymoron, the equivalent of "godly atheism." There is no understanding in Christianity whereby God simply created life and allowed it to evolve. The Christian teaching is that God created Adam in His image by a special act of creation; evolution is fundamentally, irreconcilably at odds with this doctrine. A recent book by Douglas Groothuis I just finished makes the point of how ironic it is that some Christians have embraced the notion of "theistic evolution" when Darwin's very purpose was to eliminate God from the equation.

So while I understand the point you are making about straw man fallacies, I think you are giving evolutionary science too much credit. In the abstract, the study of evolution may not "promote" atheism, but in reality evolution science has atheism as its foundation and is "indistinguishable from" atheism.

I approach this as a former atheist, but I don't see evolution as at odds with the idea that humans were created in God's image. Advanced intelligence makes us inherently different than all other known lifeforms, so I have no problem with the idea that the ultimate goal of evolutionary processes was to produce intelligent life, or even to create a species that could be gifted that type of intelligence. Humanity certainly can't be made "in God's image" in a physical sense, so it has to refer to spiritual and perhaps mental similarities.

I'm not sure how anyone could look at all the various dog breeds that humans have bred over the centuries, and all the other ways that we've harnessed evolutionary processes to change plant and animal life in ways that better suit our purposes and say that evolution doesn't exist. Or that it's incompatible with Christianity, since we are now doing precisely what theistic evolutions would say that God did to create diverse life forms. Once again, made in God's image.

 

[Runner]

I approach this as a former atheist, but I don't see evolution as at odds with the idea that humans were created in God's image. Advanced intelligence makes us inherently different than all other known lifeforms, so I have no problem with the idea that the ultimate goal of evolutionary processes was to produce intelligent life, or even to create a species that could be gifted that type of intelligence. Humanity certainly can't be made "in God's image" in a physical sense, so it has to refer to spiritual and perhaps mental similarities.

I'm not sure how anyone could look at all the various dog breeds that humans have bred over the centuries, and all the other ways that we've harnessed evolutionary processes to change plant and animal life in ways that better suit our purposes and say that evolution doesn't exist. Or that it's incompatible with Christianity, since we are now doing precisely what theistic evolutions would say that God did to create diverse life forms. Once again, made in God's image.

The different dog breeds are examples of microevolution. No one denies that microevolution occurs. The big issue is macroevolution, for which the evidence is scarce indeed. Laboratory experiments involving billions of generations of bacteria have shown literally zero evidence for macroevolution. As long as "billions and billions of years" may sound, the actual evidence suggests that the roughly 15 billion years the universe has been in existence are not nearly enough, by a really huge order of magnitude, for life to have originated and for what evolutionists say occurred to have occurred. Evolutionists' favorite ploy is to argue macroevolution from the evidence for microevolution, but this is mixing apples and oranges.

I don't see a conflict either between evolution and the notion of humans having been created in God's image. The conflict is between evolution and the Biblical account of the special creation of Adam and Eve. This is indeed a real conflict, unless perhaps you want to believe God allowed humans to evolve to the point where He had the raw material to specially create Adam and Eve in His image 100,000 or so years ago (but again, this is not what the Bible describes).

I had forgotten I owned it, but I just discovered on my Kindle Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology, https://www.amazon.com/Three-Views-...eywords=three+views+on+creation+and+evolution. I just now skimmed it again, and it is excellent. The Old Earth, Young Earth and Theistic Evolution views are presented by scholars, and each view is then critiqued not merely by the other presenters but also by high-level representatives of other disciplines. There is also an excellent Introduction and Conclusion. For a mere $7 on Kindle or $15 in paperback, it would be invaluable to anyone who wants to think more deeply about this issue.

 

[OzSpen]

We don't use Logic to understand scriptures.

Unless we use logic, we will never understand the meaning of a sentence. Is this sentence by you constructed so that I get a logical meaning from it?

Or do you want me to understand it illogically and in a deconstructed way?

 

[OzSpen]

Not at all. what did they use to reason with people? I reason with people all the time. Most call it arguing or debating. But I use the Bible to do so.

Maybe we need a forum called "reasoning". Lol

That's what we are doing here.

 

[Jim Parker]

We should talk about the attack on science by Evolutionists. When they try to conflate the elements of their godless faith with science, they damage the public's opinion of science.

MAybe you should start a thread about that.
THis thread is about avoiding logical fallacies.

 

[Jim Parker]

Do you actually believe people come to believe based on human wisdom? It IS foolishness to those who are perishing. You can't reason with dead people......

That which is foolishness to those who are perishing is the Gospel.
That was not what I was pleading with him to not say out loud in public.
It was the absolutely absurdly ridiculous statements he mad about science.

 

[Elisha]

MAybe you should start a thread about that.
THis thread is about avoiding logical fallacies.

This thread is really about the logical fallacies you're committing against Creationists.

Tell me where the Universe came from.
Tell me where life came from.
Tell me how Natural Selection favors complexity (enough to turn bacteria into humans).

You can't tell me any of that, but you'll accuse Creationists if ignorance, of not knowing logic in this case. The motto of Liberalism might as well be "Agree with me or you're ignorant and hateful." If you what to know what a Liberal is guilty of, look at what they're accusing others of.

How about you post in this forum, but refrain from accusations of ignorance and logical fallacies?

There is no Creation vs. Science debate. There is a Creation vs. Evolution debate, with Evolutionists playing a con game and pretending that their beliefs are dictated by Science.