Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

Yeah but it's easy vendors more far fetched to consider the sequence would randomly result in one logical sequence producing intelligent life with intrigued design. Now apply it to each cell sequence and method of duplicating, copying, error correcting, and working with mechanical precision, and there is no logical way to conclude evolution as a factual option. Without design by intelligence, there would not be a result of order out of disorder!18 “Come now, and let us reason together,”Says the Lord,“Though your sins are as scarlet,They will be as white as snow;Though they are red like crimson,They will be like wool.19 “If you consent and obey,You will eat the best of the land;20 “But if you refuse and rebel,You will be devoured by the sword.”Truly, the mouth of the Lord has spoken.http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/482/Rabbinical TraditionThe ancient Hebrew sages believed, of course, that God created the heavens and the earth. However, some of them believed that the Word of God was the very template with which He did it. This strikes some of us as simply a colorful exaggeration that goes beyond any direct evidence. There are hints here and there. There are two well-known references to the creation in the Scripture: Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Let’s look “underneath” the text of each of these.Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.In Hebrew:Genesis 1:1 in HebrewIf you examine the numerical values of each of the Hebrew letters, and the numerical value of the words (see chart), and apply them to this formula:The number of letters x the product of the letters  ÷The number of words x the product of the wordsYou get 3.1416 x 1017. The value of π to four decimal places!.....Hmm.John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.In Greek:John 1: 1 in GreekThis time if you take the numerical value of each of the Greek letters (see chart), and the numerical value of the words, and apply them to the same formula:The number of letters x the product of the letters ÷The number of words x the product of the wordsYou now get 2.7183 x 1040, the value of e. Curious!.Significance?Each of these is another of those puzzling ostensible “coincidences” that are too astonishing to dismiss, and yet present challenges in suggesting any real significance.3 And taken together, they do evoke some conjectures. There are, however, at least two problems: why just four decimal places (they both deviate from the fifth place onwards) and what do you do with all the “extra zeroes”?Matt 1125 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”Jesus calls chasing after the world a yoke. He compares His yoke, and says it is easy and restful. A yoke is a bar guided. We all wear a yoke, we are all slaves, one yoke leads to adoption as children, the others never are released from their yoke.No certificate of freedom. Your yoke determines if you will remain a slave to a cruel taskmaster or if you will be born again and be renewed daily till you see Him as He fully is, and are changed in a twinkling of an eye.FYI, twinkling of an eye is a scientific term. It's the aperture of light through the pupil of the eye. It's a fraction of light and time in the lowest divisible form. The Bible has more science in it then you can imagine!It's interesting they used a knowledge they couldn't have scientifically defined or knew of. The field of biology has now discovered it is restricted by the boundary conditions of the information sciences. Its historical love affair with Darwinism is now being shattered by advances in microbiology, highlighted by the disturbing revelations of Michael Denton, Philip Johnson, and Michael Behe, et al., revealing biology's apparent immunity to truth and reason.But now the field of physics, too, is in turmoil. Quantum physics has resulted in the abandonment of causality, the cornerstone of empirical science. And whether we address the units of length, mass, or time, we discover that they are composed of indivisible units that ultimately cannot be divided without losing their "locality." The more one knows about particle physics and quantum mechanics, the more provocative these "science fiction" episodes become. Indeed, it was Dr. Albert Einstein that admitted,People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between the past, present, and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.And as physics goes, so too the entire field of cosmology. I believe it was Paul Davies who observed,It is as if our entire universe is nothing more than a thought in the Mind of God.The current genre of virtual reality films, while still retaining many of the moral deficiencies that have come to characterize the products of our entertainment industry, can still be provocative and useful in conceptualizing our present situation: we find ourselves in what can be accurately described as a digital simulation.And transitions in and out of our space-time - from one "hyperspace" to another - is a potential rationalization of the more disturbing UFO reports and other apparent visits from dimensionalities other than our own.It is also a way of conceptualizing the strangest transition of all: the harpazo, the "Great Snatch," which Paul alludes to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 -18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.(A "twinkling of an eye" is not to be confused with a blink; at the speed of light passing through the retina, it is about 10-43 seconds - the very digital boundary of time itself.)http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/190/ ..