Science against Evolution has changed it's web address since last year when I posted it's link.

Once again I highly recommend this website, the author is a Protestant however he does not preach his protestantism and argues only along the lines of science refuting Evolution and proving that evolution is NOT science.  He holds a PhD and holds patents on parts of the american missles which he worked on during the 70's before he moved to computers in the 80's. This website is completely non-profit and does not even ask for nor want money, only to get to the truth.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

http://www.kolbecenter.org/ is a Catholic creationist website.

Here we go again...

I wish I could find  the thread on Angelqueen in which I totally destroyed Creationist nonsense with sound maths and physics. I could copypasta it instead of wasting all that time again.

Dont get me wrong, I believe God created the universe and everything in it, just not literally the way that the Ancient authors of the OT were able to understand it. We must keep in mind that the story of Adam and Eve was simply a way for the ancients to understand God's act of creation and convey that truth to other nomadic ancients who could never understand physics and biology. The Bible uses allegorical truth all the time and that by no means diminishes the ultimate truth that it seeks to convey.

So did Adam and Eve exist as actual persons and were they are first and only parents?

At some point homo sapiens became a unique species separate from Neandertal. So there had to at one point be one male and one female homo sapiens to mate and reproduce. We actually coexisted with neandertal for a while until they died off, being inferior. Or you could believe the people who claim aliens engineered us by mixing their genes with Neandertal. If so the first male and female test tube humans were Adam and Eve  :scratchchin:

But no, there is absolutely no reason to believe the story of Adam and Eve unless you insist (contrary to Catholic teaching) that everything in the Scriptures must be literally true, because your faith is so weak as to be threatened by the Bible being more deep and spiritually complex than you like.

At some point homo sapiens became a unique species separate from Neandertal. So there had to at one point be one male and one female homo sapiens to mate and reproduce.

Please prove it.

...there is absolutely no reason to believe the story of Adam and Eve unless you insist (contrary to Catholic teaching) that everything in the Scriptures must be literally true.

Please also prove that to believe in Adam and Eve it is necessary to insist that everything in Holy Writ must be taken literally.

The theory of evolution properly defined – that is, divested of vague notions of progress - holds that random mutation, guided by natural selection, is the cause of biological change. This is how all scientific evolutionists understand the term.

As Catholics who believe in the providence of God, we accept that his almighty Will governs the world process down to the last detail. And so we cannot at all accept the concept of “random mutation”, and must also redefine “natural selection” to be consonant with the theological understanding of a nature open to super-nature. After making these principled corrections we are left with a theory of intelligent design, rather than evolution. We can state this as a sort of minimum.

Therefore, Catholics cannot believe in the theory of evolution. This is much to the chagrin of some faithful, who, in conformity with the times, heap scorn on their brothers and style themselves scientific. Personally I believe that even accepting the outline of geological, biological, and human history sketched by the modern sciences concedes to them an altogether undeserved authority. I also find arrogant talk of “destroying” belief in creation to be un-Catholic.

“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.”

Here is a very scientific website concerning evolution and Creation:

Institute for Creation Research:
http://www.icr.org


Also, I just learned recently about bumblebees and tomatoes.  I cannot for the life of me understand how something like this can occur by chance:


"In the 1980s commercial production of bumblebee colonies for glasshouse pollination was started. A honeybee hive would be too large, and also honey bees are unable to perform the "buzz pollination" required by tomatoes. The anthers of tomatoes will only release their pollen when they are vibrated at around 400 Hz. The bumblebees do this by grabbing hold of the anthers and vibrating their flight muscles without moving their wings..."


The necessity for a plant to need a specific frequency vibration for pollination, all happening by chance, spells instant death for that species.  And the bumblebee just happens, by chance, to operate its flight muscles at the required frequency?  Sounds, to my common sense, like it was all just too nicely planned...

.

Lest I be misunderstood, I wasn't saying that Jonathan Sarfati in
the linked video, above, is a nonstop purveyor of self-contradiction.
He has a lot of very good points, and his presentation is largely and
comprehensively in accord with this thread and all the posts herein
that defend the inerrancy of Scripture and proclaim the falsity of
the bad hypothesis of evolution.  

Evolution isn't a theory, it's an hypothesis, and it fails even on that
level, so it's a bad hypothesis.  It never gets off the ground enough
for it to ever be called a "theory" so whenever you hear "the theory
of evolution," you are hearing one of its many lies.

I think the way Jonathan Sarfati enumerates his short list of "self-
refuting statements" is interesting.  See my comment below...



Creation.com is the website Dr. Sarfati mentions at the beginning
of this segment, above. At minute 2:40 he refers to one of their
many books in its treatment of "Why creation is true and why we
should trust, uhh, believe the Bible at face value, but this book
goes into things like why should we trust the Bible in the first
place:  How do we know that Jesus rose from the dead;  and how
do we answer Moslems and Hindus, atheists, New-agers;  What's
wrong with atheism? -a whole chapter on that;  How do you
reconcile a loving God with death and suffering in the world?  
These are things which which we have in one of our books that is
very different from many of the other books that we have..."

...Objective reality independent of how we think...

Min. 4:30

...like some of the eastern religions, they'll claim that 'everything is
an illusion'.  Now, one thing that - if you could think about that:  that
is a SELF-REFUTING STATEMENT.  A lot of attacks on Christianity
are self-refuting, because, if 'everything is an illusion' - that
statement, just made, is also an illusion too!

I'll go through some of the self-refuting statements often made by anti-
Christians, like when somebody says:

"There is no truth." -- Okay, now how do you know?  Is that true?!
(Laughter) Okay, now another one,

"You can't know anything for certain."  Well, then how do you
know THAT 'for certain'?!

And one that is very common among 'atheistic scientists' who
really ought to know better if they had actually thought logically
about it, is that -

"We should accept only scientifically testable claims."  We've
heard that from like Richard Dawkins and Co. -- The point is,
that that's A CLAIM!  Can that claim be 'tested scientifically'?
You can't put that claim in the laboratory and test it!  

So therefore, it's self-refuting;  because it's not a scientifically
testable claim, therefore we should not accept THEIR claim,
by it's own reasoning!  

Another one that we'll very commonly hear now, when we try
to defend the pro-life position, the pro-marriage, that "Christians
are wrong to judge when some behaviors are wrong," but isn't
that a JUDGMENT, itself?!

And one of the ones you hear from the occultists who deny the
divinity of Christ and the Trinity, and they claim that I shouldn't be
using the word "Trinity," that "You should stick to words found in
the Bible only."  Well, the problem is, the word 'bible' is not
found in the Bible!  (More laughter)

Min. 6:10  -- there are 50 more minutes to go!  


My Comment Below: This Dr. Sarfati is not Catholic, and therefore,
everything he says must be WEIGHED and critically examined.  You
would be remiss to accept his words as if he has some kind of
infallible authority.  His is a very WORLDLY authority, which can be
used so as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.  

For example, while he describes self-refuting statements and how
we ought to recognize them, he then later proceeds to issue his
own flavor or BRAND (SSPX Branding comes to mind) of self-
refuting statements, such as that we should "trust, uhh, believe
the Bible at fact value," but then when it's inconvenient for him,
he suddenly forgets how Scripture is consistent with a stationary
earth and inconsistent with a 'spinning around' earth.