Theory of Evolution

I am also defending young earth creation -- this is what the Bible teaches. The earth and the universe were specially created 6,000 years ago over 6 literal 24 hour days.There are many types of evolution. We are debating the evolution of one kind of animal changing into another (or 'molecules-to-man'). The 'general theory of evolution' as defined by evolutionist Kerkut is: the belief that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. PresuppositionsBefore we debate we need to agree that all people operate with a set of starting assumptions. Nothing can be proven in the end. It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created. All facts must be interpreted inside a framework of beliefs. Lets take for example, the Grand Canyon. We all agree it's a fact it exists. This fact although has to be interpreted. Evolutionists will say it formed with a little water over a lot of time. Creationists will say it formed in a short amount of time with a lot of water. There may be evidence to support both claims, but neither can be proven. This is where the valid distinction of observational science and historical science comes in. Observational science is the science that gives us planes, medicine, cures, etc. Experiments in the here and the now, that can be repeated and proven. "Historical by its very nature is based on a worldview i.e., religion. Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created it ex nihilo. Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive), or God created life as described in Genesis 1–2. Neither theory is provable (testable, repeatable, etc.)." [1]Think of it this way -- we all have the same facts, the same fossils, the same rocks and the same universe. We arive at different conclusions though. This is because of our starting beliefs. We don't pull out rocks from the ground with a label saying how old they are. I wish it was that easy, but the rocks have to be interpreted. You have to have assumptions (unprovable beliefs) to make since of the facts. With that being said, the worldview that is true, should be the one that makes most since of the evidence. So the creation/evolution debate is not a debate of evidence, but it is a debate of two very different worldviews. For a great video and better understanding of this then watch this video -- http://www.answersingenesis.org... [1] http://www.answersingenesis.org...Also take a look at http://www.answersingenesis.org...Definitions for debate -Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. (Both creation and evolution are this -- The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. General theory of evolution: the belief that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.