Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[Mister Agenda]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d...76345.html

I've learned not to trust any article that manipulates the facts for persuasive purposes.

It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth,

Some birds have teeth. Some birds have scales on their legs. Both fill vital roles now--unrelated to history.

whales to make legs,

Baleen whales have a hox gene that, when switched, can affect expression. But there have to be other genes to produce the legs once turned on by the hox gene. These genes do not exist.

and humans to make tails.

Human embryos have tails in certain stages of development to aid assembly of the vertebrae. Later in life, people have tailbones to support their spinal cord. Both are in full use today.
The question evolutionists should be asking is this: If evolution is happening today, why do DNA codes contain no new dormant genes from which to build future organs?

That still doesn't explain why toothless birds and legless whales and tailess humans have genes for traits they don't possess. Sometimes bird species that are normally toothless present individuals with teeth. Sometimes individual whales present vestigial legs. Sometimes people are born with tails (which are usually promptly lopped off). Evolution explains the phenomenon handily: they all had ancestors with those features and still carry genes for them that can be activated by a point mutation or by a 'hormonal event' during gestation. Genesis neither explains nor addresses it. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're trying to make the Bible into a biology textbook.

It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.

Most evolutionists believe humans arose from one biological ancestor.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ev...cestor.htm

Yes...several million years ago, not several thousand.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.phpIf science is on his side, why not just be honest?

You've failed to establish that he was dishonest, you've only established that you dislike his position.