>>104459146
>Your response doesn't address my point at all. Thanks for conceding the point.
My points were arguing against them as being concrete phenimena and facts which are proven, which i did
>Fossil records
There has never been any fossil that proves a transition from one species to another, which is what the evolution theory proposes should be the case.
>genetic evidence
Genetic similarities point towards a common ancestor as much as it points towards a common Creator
>direct observation of speciation in both controlled and natural environments
Only microevolution (adaptation).
>you'd still have to provide a mechanistic explanation of why microevolution over many generation doesn't accumulate into macroevolution, and evidence of that mechanism occurring
No i don't, my position doesn't affirm any of those things. My position says God created beast and man distinct from one another, animals all on the same day. If animals then adapt is a different thing, and only gives further glory to God's design.
There is no evidence for micro evolution leading to macro evolution. Micro evolution should indicate the existence of many fossils which share attributes from 2 different species and also 2 animals at the same time, but there is no such fossil which meets these requirements. No "transitional" fossils are ever proper transitional, instead, they look very different from the proposed species they're inbetween.
>analysis of the cosmic microwave background, radioactive decay, and stellar evolution, each single consistently telling us that the universe is about 14 billion years old.
Degradation is not evidence of age, since you can only assume a constant or at least on-going decay state in a naturalistic worldview. The Scriptures clearly account for this element, as it is written death entered the world through the fall of man.
>>104459785
Christ is the reason for why man is capable of not only critical thinking, but also reasoning ability in on itself. By being the Word, Logos, of God, Christ enables eligibility of logical distinction between bodies and events. If there is no Logos, we could not formulate sentences by a distinction in the order of nouns and verbs and other sentence elements. Likewise, we couldn't make sense of any of those things anyways. Furthermore, the ability to differentiate between spatial bodies also is reliant on the Logos, as it is what allows us to make a distinction between one thing and another, even if they are the same thing (think of 2 cars, even though they are both cars, maybe even the exact same kind of car, you can still tell they're two different objects)
Immanuel Kant argued that time and space are purely passive realities necessary for our ability to reason, this is fine on its own, but only really takes a proper hold when observed in a Christian metaphysical paradigm.
The evolution theory isn't concerned with and instead neglects the area of metaphysics, while it is the most important domain to figure out when you wosh to formulate a proper and consistent worldview, both personally and in a fictional setting.
First order questions are concerned with immediate problems, but second order questions are concerned with metaphysical and epistemological realities. Evolution doesn't consider the latter, which is reasonably more important than the former (because it lays the foundation for what is allowed in the world). It simply deals with first order problems and assumes stuff to avoid dealing with metaphysical troubles, such as that we can rely on our sensory faculties to draw conclusions. In a purely evolutionist worldview, where change is driven by random mutations, there would be no reason to trust our senses.
The reality of time and space as passive realities REQUIRED for our ability to reason directly leads to the deduction of God's existence and i might even say His attributes (though i don't believe in natural theology like catholics do, you wouldn't be able to know God as He's revealed Himself from only reasoning (which is why they say muslims worship the same god as them))
Scientific arguments? Not my forte; Metaphysical reasoning however? I do much better at that
