Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

[SmokinDVM]

Smokin, I can't understand what is being said in the articles you've posted. They are confusing to say the least. I think it's because I am unfamiliar with certain scientific terminology which states the position of the author early on.

Don't take this wrong, but if you can't understand science how can you expect to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion?
You posted about hydraulic theory when you brought up the flood. Do you just repeat what others have told you, since you don't understand science?

Smokin, you call the Bible a work of fiction. Let me just say this, it has never been shown to be incorrect by archeology. Modern archeology in the Middle East has uncovered towns, cities, and people groups who were thought to have been made up by the various authors of the Old Testament. The more they dig, the more they reveal, showing that at the very least the Bible stands as an accurate document from a historical perspective. Archeology is a testament to the veracity of contents. Does it prove that Moses parted the Red Sea? No, but all that digging proves that the stuff they were talking about is actually there, it existed. The New Testament also has stood up to the rigorous acid test of archeology, and even more so due to the fact that it is so close in relative time frame to the present. If you read Acts, you will see that there is a lot of information contained there in which can be tested by going to the area and looking around. Names of governors, aides, architectural pieces, who was ruling what areas at what time, etc. There is a ton of stuff to disprove. But it has all been shown to be accurate. Luke, the author of the book, has been called a "historian of the highest degree" because of the amount of detail in his book found to be backed up by the archeological record. It's all there. Why would Luke go through so much trouble to take a detailed record of what was going on during his travels with Paul? Perhaps it was because he understood the importance of the events of his time. But you've got to ask youself, if he took such extreme effort to get minor details of his record right, wouldn't he take even more effort to make sure he got details right in his account of the life and death of Jesus?

My wife reads romance novels. Some of them refer to cities and countries, and to people that were real but are now dead. Are her novels then to be held up as scripture? I think not. Just because there are references to actual places and well known people in the bible, does not make it's wild tales of magical tricks true.

Whitewidow, the speed of light has been slowing down since it's been first measured a few centuries ago. It's has been show to be slowing down, and even it's rate of slow down has been slowing down. In other words, it was slowing down at a great pace early on, and now is slowing down extremely slowly. So if we can imagine an early universe with the speed of light being almost instantaneous, and for some reason (perhaps the fall of Adam), it has been caused to slow down, we can see the universe in its current state.

The speed of light is slowing down? Link to scientific explaination as to why that theory is false.

Barry Setterfield was the first to notice the phenomenon and has done groundbreaking work in this area, which was first embraced by the scientific community as being fundamentally sound, but after it was found out that Barry was a young earth creationist and the connection was made to how this seminal work could be construde as supporting a young earth, all further support was removed. The humanist influence in education and the sciences is extremely powerful.

The reason support for his "work" was removed is because it was found to be "gross misinterpretations of innaccurate data". See above link.