Evolution falsifies God/s?

(I offer this post as alternative reading material, the "opposing" view, note I am not attacking RAZD's information, but I would like to show to readers such as Faceman, that there is an alternative way to view the world. That's all, I promise I have no debate-intentions, we all know what I believe and expound, and we all know that what I expound will be "ripped" to pieces, following this post. For me, this doesn't prove my points unsound, because anyone can rip a fine cake to pieces. Majority-rule doesn't prove anything to me, which is why am like a bouncy mikey-ball that always comes back. ) I agree all four, "facts", exist. I submit that those facts can still exist even if molecules-to-man, did not happen. Logically it has been shown that these, "parts" of Darwin's claim do not preclude the "whole" from being false.For example, if the branching, changing, and frequencies, all happened, these can all happen without any macro-changes to animal kinds. This is why evolution does not make any claims that animals MUST change over time, because all of these "facts" do not imply that animals MUST macro-evolve. So when you say, "this is evolution", then since I, mike, agree with all of those facts existing, does this mean I believe in, quote, "evolution"?Yet we know that mike doesn't accept macro-evolution. In that case, how can I agree with evolution, and not agree with evolution unless the word has two meanings? It must at least mean two different things, logically.Don't fall for the bait and switch - creation.comAt most, those facts sited, provide compelling confirmation evidence, in an inductive form, (as to claim proof is to affirm the consequent). Those things SHOULD follow given a macro evolution, that they actually do, is not consequential. It is "interesting".But the burden of proof is still very heavy upon Darwin's shoulders, given the size of the very great claim of molecules-to-man. Burden Of ProofEvolution Is Not A FactOne final point I make is in reference to the fallacy of composition. Even if the parts are true, this does not make the whole true. I won't get into disputing evidence, because I don't dispute any, I also accept adaptation in animals.Notice I CERTAINLY DO accept those four facts that make "evolution", so does that mean that really I am evolutionist? If I accept those facts, and those facts, ARE "evolution" but I don't accept, "evolution", then logically, we have an equivocation problem happening.Notice all the scientists at CMI ALSO accept those facts, but simply disagree that they are consequential. Consequential to what? To accepting MORE than those facts. What is MORE? MORE is to say, "ergo, molecules-to-man." But that "ergo" does not logically follow.All the best, mike.(Disclaimer. Please note RAZD, my very contrary opinions in no way effect the eloquence, knowledge, patience and cogency your posts constantly offer, which I have not seen an equal response to in fair debate, in this topic, as of yet. Naturally we are still diametrically opposed, ideologically, but please don't take that personally, because this is my standard response to all evolutionists. So very many times, because we are so outnumbered, it seems our absence-of-presence means that there is an absence-of-evidence of Christians actually having a response. So I chose to offer material to the contrary. We do exist, we do have an alternative thinking-pattern, but we are few in number. Absence of evidence can seem consequential, but only a "conspicuous absence of evidence" is consequential. Most Christians aren't all that intellectual, which also gives us absence. Feel free to have the final word on this one, as I am just passing through. )

The crimes, "rape" and "murder" both contradict the Gospel message and NT, which says such things as, "walk in the spirit and you won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh". And, "he who hates his brother is a murderer". And, "do no murder".A person can, "profess" to be anything, but if their actions contradict that which their professions are defined by, then they are not what they claim. For example, if I claimed to be an atheist, and prayed to God every night in sincere belief, this would mean that my professions contradicted my actions.You should also note that there are a lot of Christian prison-programs where prisoners are told the gospel, and will LATER, profess Christianity, after hearing. Whether this is a true repentance, depends on their fruit later on.So your definition of "Christianity" has to be a blanket definition, with no meaning. You haven't stated one of the premises of your argument, which is, "if it is accepted that my interpretations of the bible are correct and we all agree on them."- I hold it to be inerrant.
- I don't hold that rape and murder are endorsedBut in an atheist, evolutionist, world, "rape and murder" are the same as, "eating ice-cream", because materialistically speaking, both are just an interaction of particles. So why didn't you accuse Christians of eating ice cream, if your world is true?You APPEAL to morality, but again, what is morality except a set of preferences between your ears, and those who agree with you? Premise 1. "your God instructs such things." (an atheist interpretation)
Premise 2. God is held as universally acceptable.
ERGO Christians accept rape an murder.Premise one is incorrect, we don't accept that God, "instructs rape and murder." There are many theological reasons that pertain to what Christians accept.If I were to say, "God condones rape and murder" since I define myself as an accepter of an inerrant bible, because it says, "do not murder" I would break the definition of what it means to believe in inerrancy, if I were to conclude that He condones it. Therefore I would not really accept an inerrant bible. Therefore someone that accepts an inerrant bible, CAN'T do what you say WITHOUT NOT being an inerrantist. Thus your argument is a contradiction in terms because I have to be both an inerrantist, and a none-inerrantist for your argument to hold water.It's like saying, "as an eater of only genuine food, you accept that none-genuine food is food, therefore you eat none-genuine food."But to accept none-genuine food would mean I don't "only accept genuine food." So I would be both X and NOT X, which breaks the law of non-contradiction.As inerrantists, you forget that we hold the bible inerrant, which means when it says God doesn't condone sin, or sin, we have to accept it, or NOT BE inerrantist, BY DEFINITION. So if He kills or recommends an ugly action, as He does at times in the OT, then He can only be doing it for an ultimately righteous reason.