Theistic Evolution -- Should Christians consider Evolutionary Creationism?

if 1 million world leaders said that poop is chocolate, would you believe them??

Evolution has a lot of things there not proud of. Lot of things that does not fit with there theory. 

They did not write the Bible, they were inspired BY GOD to record these events that others may believe in God.

A nice thought.

Unfortunately, the evidence is not supporting it, at the moment.

I honestly will not listen to your arguments without any proof, the greatest proof of Gods love and of his existence for me, is feeling his presence... And all the miracles he does for me and my family. At the age of 14 i am called a pastor at times but always tell others, all because i share and teach somewhere, that only shows that i want to share about God and his word..

They might, evolutionist are pretty trusting

HUH?? Can they prove it??

Well said, Benjibass

NO.

But again, the evidence supports Evolution.

There is no more evidence of poop chocolate, than there is of a 6000 year old universe.

And P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute.

Ken Ham sure proves that, huh?

I agree,  i think that is 5 World presidents agreed that tomatoes come from underwater, and told that to all evolutionists they would also agree to it, they would be like "Well you see our analysis shows that tomatoes have some water in em.... So that means they came from water." truth  is, they would burst open if they came from under water.

Or evolution so stop calling your theory science because it's not

Well about the same amount of proof with poop being dark..

Also i dared you to read these links..

It Comes down to this, there's no proof for evolution witch means it's a religion too

but then what is the truth, thing is, People believing in evolution can not prove the Bible wrong.. LOL There is honestly no way to disprove Gods existence..... That is the true and most logical way for the explanation for the universes existence.

Ken Ham is a good example of someone who has very poor understanding who makes creative pronouncements about what he thinks is true and gets it wrong pretty much all of the time. The average creationist has no way of telling that he is no more reliable than a script from the Flintstones.

A central point has never been understood by a science denier. Science (including the specific science of Evolution) has enormous capability for testable prediction. It is only when predictions have been thoroughly tested that a central idea earns the label "theory". In the case of Evolution, Darwin was the first to use the word and he spend several decades before he was sure it was justified.

ok, let's take a look at this one.

It took me less than a minute to find the first unambiguous error. The nicely formatted but otherwise very low quality page says:

"However, this error is not the real error on the date."

False. Errors stated in scientific papers are TOTAL uncertainty on values. They need to include every conceivable source of uncertainty. The uncertainties permit statements like "the date is within 20 million years of XXXX with 99.9% certainty.

"It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory."

No. Simply false. This was written by someone who did not know what an uncertainty stated in a scientific paper means. See above.

"Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results."

Why would he think they would give a "larger" scatter? They are rocks sampled from the same population of rocks, so one can reliably say they would have similar statistical properties. Sloppy thinking here.

"And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the assumptions behind the ‘age’ calculation."

These "huge" uncertainties are a fiction invented by people who deny scientific fact. The truth is that it has been scientifically shown with near certainty that there are not "huge" uncertainties. I will explain how below.

"These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed."

This is not an assumption. It is a scientific CONCLUSION. This is because there are often many different ways to date the same rock (six ways in some of the best studies). These ways involve studying entirely different isotopes in the same rock which decay by different mechanisms, influenced in different ways by the magnitudes of the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces to have widely varying half lives. These different ways are typically in excellent agreement, even to within less than 1%.

There is a subtle point here which no creationist is likely to understand, that because of the way the fundamental forces determine the rates of decay, it is essentially impossible to change the strength of the forces so that the decay rates of different isotopes change proportionately. That means if there was ANY change in a relevant law of physics, the different radiometric clocks would not agree. They do agree, therefore the fundamental forces of physics have not changed, so decay rates have not changed, so radiometric dating is reliable. Use several methods on your rock to be sure, observe that they are all similar and you have not only checked the age of the rock, you have checked that decay rates don't change.

Note also that if the fundamental forces changed significantly, nothing in the Universe would be stable. If the weak or strong nuclear forces changed, the Sun would either blow up or die. If the electromagnetic force changed, water would either boil or freeze at normal temperatures and biochemistry would stop working. Stable laws of physics are necessary to explain everything in the history of our planet and Universe.

"In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times."

No, they most certainly have not. This is complete nonsense that is not accurate enough for a good quality cartoon never mind anything more serious.

"Creationist physicists"

Pretend physicists who can't do real physics and get real physics qualifications from a reputable university.

"point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year.”

This is flaky science fiction by someone with an over-active imagination and an inadequacy of expertise.