So it has to be "on this thread" for you to be comfortable in your own security. It doesn't matter that I posted it numerous times in other threads.
I'll repost it for you though.
You owe the reader an executive summary and source citation. That's why The Goddess invented footnotes
Pope John Paul II never said that Catholicism was in allignment with evolution. He said that it was in allignment with micro-evolution. A far patent from macro-evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists like to use this strawman that natural selection is empirical evidence towards macro-evolution's factual state--WRONG!!
You accidently hit on something germaine to the discussion, Pariah. While there is no dispute about evolution in biological science, Natural Selection is controversial (or it was when I took Marine Biology). That topic is debatable.
Quote: magicjay38 said:
Creationism requires the belief in God.
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Not necessarily the Christian God. It could be a bunch of alieans for all the name suggests.
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
Yes. However, that does not mean that evolution is a logical answer simply because its an alternative prospect.
In the case of the Christian God, it is. And, abain, even if it does not require a belief in God, that does not mean it's true.
No. It's not.
The existance of life and the universe in its present form are both highly improbable. There are many things that we can explain by observation. God is not one of them. Any theory relying on god is less probable than one that does not. Neither theories is provable but evolution is a better bet.
Quote: BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
There is none. But I don't see why that should matter. Astrology was almost made a genuine science way back when and it's in the same category of evolution as total bullshit.
Simply because there's an entire field of study that surrounds a subject, that does not make it a genuinely helpful or even factual science. Like Theory, you seem to be of the mind that science creates facts, when it's simply supposed to discover them. Work on that.
The point is that in academia creation science lacks credibility. Using evolution as a foundation for study a great deal has been learned about the workings of living things. One of the benefits of this approach has been the development of cures for diseases that formerly devastated human population. Creation science is not associated with either of those.
