The Evolution vs Creation Thread.

Personally, I do not believe in evolution. For several reasons.

Should things be getting better? If we are constantly evolving to become better beings, why are we getting physically sicker and experiencing worse mental and physical ills than any other time period in history?

When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,” a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But is it?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.Science can not be fully trusted.

Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the matter.

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”

If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.”

This, among many more reasons which i am too tired to mention presently, is why i disagree with the theory of evolution. Common sense really, the intelligence in nature is so unbelievably astounding. Additionally, explosions destroy things...(<attempt at humor)


Your thoughts?? ideas??

Yet baseless facts from your holy book of choice can? double standards?

The only reason these were thought to be true at the time was that there was no other way to prove otherwise. If you can tell me how someone a millenia or so ago can scientifically test it id be glad to hear. As for the Earth as the center of the universe, that was a catholic doctrine, which science actually challenged rather then supported.

No they arent... evolution is for the most part agreed upon by all evolutionists, it is only the fringes of the evolution scene where there is any real debate.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, Evolution explains the diversity of life, not how it got here. The creation of life is handled by abiogenesis, there is much debate in this area but many various theories have been put forward.

They arent useless without all their parts, hell there are lineages of evolution for all three examples youve given. Ill give you one for the eye:

Imageiagram of eye evolution.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some parts about our eye show that design is in fact not likely, for example our light sensitive regions face backwards, and would give us better vision if they faced forwards and didnt have capillaries in the way, it would also eliminate the "blind spot". Octopus eyes are apparently built in this way. Examples of the various steps of eye evolution can be seen in animals still alive today.


Thats an abhorrent misquote!:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.


The human brain is just as easily explained as the eye, each bit is added slowly over millions of years. Give something half a billion years and its not hard to think of progressing from a few neurons, to the awesome power of the human mind.

nbound responded most eloquently to your other points, but I really must take exception here.

It has not been thought for thousands of years that the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes blew the lid off that one in the third century BCE. And he got a pretty good estimate of its circumference. The very notion that the earth is flat crumbles the instant a person looks critically at the horizon, and it did. The case of the flat earth hypothesis actually demonstrates one of science's greatest strengths: the ability to discard faulty theories in favor of new ones when evidence comes along that that theory cannot account for. The flat earth hypothesis was discarded practically as soon as it was possible to investigate it critically.

Geocentrism, also, hasn't been taken seriously by anyone who critically looked at it for the last two thousand years. Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric model in the third century BC. Islamic astronomers were questioning geocentrism as soon as they started looking carefully at Ptolemy's claims- notably, Ibn al-Haytham in his Doubts concerning Ptolemy.

In both cases, the evidence was flimsy and the ideas were discarded early in the development of civilization. You ought also to realize that, at least in geocentrism's case, the conclusion drawn was based off of aesthetics and little else. The idea of the Earth at the center of everything and the heavens proceeding in a nice, orderly fashion was a holdover from Aristotle, who I'm certain meant well but absolutely did not have the ability to double-check that.

Science is most certainly an imperfect venture, like anything humans do, but in the few centuries that formalized scientific inquiry has been around, it has advanced human knowledge and technology farther than any other field of study had before it. A theory that has a track record like evolution (amazing explanatory power, a convergence of evidence from diverse fields to back it up, and a versatile mathematical model that almost anybody can understand) and is pretty much agreed upon by the entire scientific community except for details (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism comes to mind).

For one, "we" don't get better. We have the genes we were born with. We are not constantly getting better.

Also, life in general is not constantly evolving to become better beings. The best that can be said is that the current crop of species are simply the ones that fared the least horribly by occupying their respective ecological niches. That's all that evolution really predicts.

By the way, do you have any evidence to support your claim that we are getting physically sicker and experiencing worse mental and physical ills than any other time period in history? I don't seem to recall anybody mentioning explosives as being part of evolutionary biology. I hope you're not confusing a laughably poor understanding of the Big Bang with the theory of evolution.

I think the following is the best overall condensed explanation of evolution I have read. It was posted on another forum.

For science evolution is a fact. It's beyond discussion its basic mechanisms although there could be discussion in particular areas of how evolution process really work.
You can believe in whatever you want. If you believe in the science reasoning, then you must read what Evolution really is and once you understand it, you will no longer ask why all apes haven't evolved and also you will get answers to a lot more questions. Although there is one thing that distinguish science from religion: If you can find an evidence that contradicts an established theory AND that theory cannot be extended to explain that new fact, then you can discard the old theory in favor of the new one. It has happened before and will happen again.

You claim that you are not convinced about the theory of evolution due to insufficient evidence, but where is your evidence for creationism? I'll believe in creationism when babies start being born with a "Made by God" stamp on the bottoms of their feet.

Secondly, some of your arguments seem a little bit weak to me. First of all, that isn't true. The average lifespan now is much higher than it was even fifty years ago. Secondly, humans aren't a good example of evolution at work, because as our knowledge of diseases and treatments increases, we reduce the "natural selection" process. By treating our ailments effectively, we live to pass on our faulty genes to the next generation. I think eyeglasses are a good example - it seems like everyone needs them nowadays, and the reason we aren't evolving better eyesight is because bad eyesight no longer impedes survival.

ive got an unbelieveable amount of replying to do...but it will take time, im at work and i cant really type in a forum for hours straight, so tty soon.

well metaphor- if we stripped you naked and dropped you in the middle of a jungle or dessert, you would adapt and evolve into something other than you would have been otherwise.

I do not believe man can from monkey's, but do know from a biblical perspective God said 'let us make man in our image and after our likeness' 6k years ago not 'lets us make man'. Big difference. I lean more towards the ruin-reconstruction theory because as a rational being I can not except the earth is only 6k years old when I consider the evidence. It's also the most supported by scripture. Creationism as most 'christians' teach is not. It's a shame young earthers run around claiming such an absurdity twisting scripture to do it.

and the earth became desolate and void.....
is what
and the earth was w/o form and void
means

was
hayah=a primitive root (compare 'hava'' (1933)); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

so what was it before that. Did God create it in a desolate and void state? That's not exactly a biblical view of God, is it? Kinda kills the 'God made....saw....it's is good' concept, eh?

quick reply to bvc.

Some fundamentalists claim that creationism rather than evolution explains pre-human history. They assert that all physical creation was produced in just six days of 24 hours each sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. But in doing so, they promote an unscriptural teaching that has caused many to ridicule the Bible.

Is a day in the Bible always literally 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of “the day that God made earth and heaven.” This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. If one of us were to say, I was a fox back in the day, that would mean a period of time. The Bible’s creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1)

'day' can be a period of time, and often is, but when it is scripture clearly indicates it. In this case it clearly says during the reconstruction of the earth 6k years ago the evening and morning was the day. To apply a day as a prolonged period of time here is to ignore the context. The context tells us it is not a period of time passing one cycle of the rising and going down of the sun and moon. In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth. There's no time in that verse except to go back to the beginning. The earth has been here a very long time.

(example) we know the Day of the Lord is a period of time because holistically scripture reveals it.

Oh, and you missed that it was a reconstruction. I agree a new creation in 6 24hr days is ridiculous. I thought I said that.

yah, we are agreeing on that concept bvc.

Currently im typing a large document about creation, i will post it when i can. ITs taking a lot of research to voice my understanding of things..

Why not play with the wording on something that has been translated it already has been interpreted! Go to original language to interpret it... Or maybe not.. needless to say, ancient scripture hardly interests me.
This serious? For one, you might have noticed that humans need a man and a woman to reproduce. Also, of course he could die! The whole point of evolution is that badly adapted creatures have lesser chances of reproducing..
It seems awfully silly to me that at certain points of time some 'god' decides to do something on the surface of some planet. Evolution has no such artificialities, and explains things. It is like emergent systems, you think god interferes with flocks of birds and schools of fish to make them form the balls that they do?

Why I believe in creation as opposed to evolution. (expanded)


True Science Harmonizes With the Bible

When the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate. Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.

Even more fundamental than the movement of stars and planets is that all matter in the universe is governed by laws, such as the law of gravity. The earliest known non-Biblical reference to physical laws was made by Pythagoras, who believed that the universe could be explained by numbers. Two thousand years later, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton finally proved that matter is governed by rational laws . The earliest Biblical reference to natural law is contained in the book of Job. About 1600 B.C.E., God asked Job: “Have you come to know the statutes [or, laws] of the heavens?” (Job 38:33) Recorded in the seventh century B.C.E., the book of Jeremiah refers to God as the Creator of “the statutes of the moon and the stars” and “the statutes of heaven and earth.” (Jeremiah 31:35; 33:25) In view of these statements, Bible commentator G. Rawlinson observed: “The general prevalence of law in the material world is quite as strongly asserted by the sacred writers as by modern science.” If we use Pythagoras as a point of reference, the statement in Job was about a thousand years ahead of its time.

Another example we can consider is that the earth’s waters undergo a cyclic motion called the water cycle, or the hydrologic cycle. Put simply, water evaporates from the sea, forms clouds, precipitates onto the land, and eventually returns to the sea. The oldest surviving non-Biblical references to this cycle are from the fourth century B.C.E. However, Biblical statements predate that by hundreds of years. For example, in the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote: “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.
Likewise, about 800 B.C.E. the prophet Amos, a humble shepherd and farmworker, wrote that God is “the One calling for the waters of the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth.” (Amos 5:8) Without using complex, technical language, both Solomon and Amos accurately described the water cycle, each from a slightly different perspective.

The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible. (Job 26:7) In view of the knowledge available in 1600 B.C.E., roughly when those words were spoken, it would have taken a remarkable man to assert that a solid object can remain suspended in space without any physical support. As previously mentioned, Aristotle himself rejected the concept of a void, and he lived over 1,200 years later!

Does it not strike you as amazing that the Bible makes such accurate statements—even in the face of the erroneous yet seemingly commonsense perceptions of the day?

Supported Scientific Principles in the Bible.

In the first verse of the Bible we read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) At one time scientists hotly debated whether there even was a beginning, or whether matter had always existed. In 1979, though, Time magazine stated: “Most astronomers now accept the theory that the universe had an instant of creation. . . . The Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling all along.”

Back in the seventeenth century, for example, the Italian scientist Galileo taught that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. The Catholic Church ordered him to recant. Why? Because they considered that what he was saying contradicted the Bible. Well, Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. But the Bible was not wrong. The Bible nowhere states that the sun orbits the earth. It was the ancient astronomer Ptolemy who said that. Science and the bible do not contradict. It’s a shame when religious organizations disregard the basis for their beliefs.

Another instance where the Bible is largely in agreement with modern science is in the handling of disease. Of course, in the days when the Bible was written the medicines that are available today were unknown. But within the limitations of the times, God’s Word protected his worshipers from the worst effects of sickness. In the days of Moses, for example, leprosy was a serious threat. The Bible gives detailed instructions that many modern doctors would agree with about how to quarantine someone suspected of having leprosy, and so keep the rest of the nation clean. (Leviticus 13:1–14:57) In fact this part of the Bible contains many laws about cleanliness that suggest a knowledge of sanitary principles far in advance of that early time. This, of course, is what we would expect when we remember that it was God who gave them these laws.


Hence, the objections raised by some that the Bible is contradictory or unscientific are no reason for rejecting this book as the Word of God. Most of these objections spring from a lack of understanding, and when investigated, they only add to the evidence that the Bible truly is divinely inspired.

..Oh man, carpel tunnel..okay…now what…. All of that ^^^, points to the bible as scientifically accurate and inspired by a creator, evidence of biblical truths which predate human discoveries point to divine intervention... Now to some various points….

some interesting points

1- Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur. Older reports of spontaneous generation are given no credence since the experiments of Pasteur. In controlled experiments, it just does not happen. Examination of soil from the moon and chemical tests on the surface of Mars verify that life has not arisen on those planets.


2- Every living thing brings forth its own kind of offspring. (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) Neither the evidence from paleontology nor experiments in breeding or mutation have ever been shown to refute this principle. Fossil remains from ancient geologic strata of species that are still alive are identical with present-day forms. Wide diversity within a given kind may appear both in nature and in breeding experiments, but in no case does it ever pass beyond the limits to produce a new kind.

3-Thirdly, with respect to man the Bible discloses the time of his beginning, about 6,000 years ago. (Plants and animals have been here much longer.) With this date history and archaeology are in close agreement. Claims for older human fossils by evolutionists are subject to dispute and do not disprove the Bible record.

Man I need coffee….

The complexity of life and the universe.

When Darwin developed his theory, scientists had little or no knowledge of the amazing complexity of the living cell. Modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, has revealed some of that intricacy. It has also raised serious questions and doubts about Darwin’s theory.

The components of cells are made up of molecules. Cells are the building blocks of all living creatures. Professor Behe is Roman Catholic and believes in evolution to explain the later development of animals. However, he raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that “haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.”

Now, all of this activity is taking place on what scale? A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex. Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms “irreducible complexity.”


This presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics. Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

The irreducibly complex cell is a major stumbling block to belief in Darwin’s theory. In the first place, evolution cannot explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter. Then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit. In other words, the cell (or, the mousetrap) must appear out of nowhere, assembled and functioning!

Our unique planet.

Among the many precise conditions vital to life on the earth is the amount of light and heat received from the sun. The earth gets only a small fraction of the sun’s energy. Yet, it is just the right amount required to sustain life. This is because the earth is just the right distance from the sun—an average 93,000,000 miles. If the earth were much closer to the sun or farther away from it, temperatures would be too hot or too cold for life.
As it orbits the sun once a year the earth travels at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. That speed is just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. If that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. In time, Earth could become a scorched wasteland like Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Mercury’s daytime temperature is over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if Earth’s orbital speed were increased, it would move farther away from the sun and could become an icy waste like Pluto, the planet whose orbit reaches farthest from the sun. Pluto’s temperature is about 300 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
In addition, the earth consistently makes a complete rotation on its axis every 24 hours. This provides regular periods of light and darkness. But what if the earth rotated on its axis, say, only once a year? It would mean that the same side of the earth would be facing the sun all year long. That side would likely become a furnace-like desert, while the side away from the sun would likely become a sub-zero wasteland. Few, if any, living things could exist in those extreme circumstances.
As Earth rotates on its axis, it is tilted 23.5 degrees in relation to the sun. If the earth were not tilted, there would be no change of seasons. Climate would be the same all the time. While this would not make life impossible, it would make it less interesting and would drastically change the present crop cycles in many places. If the earth were tilted much more, there would be extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters. But the tilt of 23.5 degrees allows for the delightful changing of seasons with their interesting variety. In many parts of the earth there are refreshing springtimes with plants and trees awakening and beautiful flowers coming into bloom, warm summers that allow for all kinds of outdoor activity, crisp autumn weather with gorgeous displays of leaves changing colors, and winters with beautiful scenes of snow-draped mountains, forests and fields.

Also unique—indeed, amazing—is the atmosphere that surrounds our earth. No other planet in our solar system has it. Nor does our moon. That is why astronauts needed space suits to survive there. But no space suits are needed on the earth, because our atmosphere contains the right proportions of gases that are absolutely essential for life. Some of those gases, by themselves, are deadly. But because air contains safe proportions of these gases, we can breathe them without harm.
One of those gases is oxygen, making up 21 percent of the air we breathe. Without it, humans and animals would die within minutes. But too much oxygen would endanger our existence. Why? Pure oxygen becomes toxic if breathed too long. In addition, the more oxygen there is, the more easily things burn. If there were too much oxygen in the atmosphere, combustible materials would become highly flammable. Fires would easily burst forth and would be difficult to control. Wisely, oxygen is diluted with other gases, especially nitrogen, which makes up 78 percent of the atmosphere. But nitrogen is much more than just a dilutant. During thunderstorms, millions of lightning bolts occur earth wide every day. This lightning causes some nitrogen to combine with oxygen. The compounds produced are carried to the earth by rain, and plants make use of them as fertilizer.
Carbon dioxide makes up less than one percent of the atmosphere. What good is such a small amount? Without it, plant life would die. That small amount is what plants need to take in, giving off oxygen in return. Humans and animals breathe in the oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. An increasing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would tend to be harmful to humans and animals. A decreasing percentage could not support plant life. What a marvelous, precise, self-sustaining cycle has been arranged for plant, animal and human life!
The atmosphere does more than sustain life. It serves as a protective shell too. About 15 miles above the ground, a thin layer of ozone gas filters out harmful radiation from the sun. Without this ozone layer, such radiation could destroy life on earth. Also, the atmosphere shields the earth from bombardment by meteors. Most meteors never reach the ground because they burn up in their descent through the atmosphere, appearing to us as falling stars. Otherwise, millions of meteors would strike all parts of the earth, resulting in extensive damage to life and property.
In addition to being a protective shell, the atmosphere keeps the warmth of the earth from being lost to the coldness of space. And the atmosphere is itself kept from escaping by the earth’s gravitational pull. That gravity is just strong enough to accomplish this, but not so strong that our freedom of movement is hampered.
Not only is the atmosphere vital for life, but one of the more beautiful sights is the changing sky. Its scope and grandeur simply stagger the imagination. The earth is enveloped with the sky’s endlessly majestic and colorful panoramas. In the east a golden glow announces the dawn, while the western sky bids the day farewell in glorious displays of pink, orange, red and purple. White billowy, cottonlike clouds proclaim a fine spring or summer day; an autumn mantle of clouds like lamb’s wool says that winter is approaching. At night the sky is magnificent in its starry splendor, and a moonlit night has a beauty all its own.

What an amazing provision our earth’s atmosphere is, in every way! As a writer in The New England Journal of Medicine commented: “Taken all in all, the sky is a miraculous achievement. It works, and for what it is designed to accomplish it is as infallible as anything in nature. I doubt whether any of us could think of a way to improve on it, beyond maybe shifting a local cloud from here to there on occasion.” This comment calls to mind what a man millenniums ago recognized when confronted with such remarkable things—that they are “the wonderful works of the One perfect in knowledge.” He meant, of course, “the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out.”—Job 37:16; Isaiah 42:5

What I am trying to point out with all of this, is that how could all of this JUST HAPPEN? Evidence points to intelligent design, not fluke. There are so many more amazing things to consider, the scope of the universe, heck even substances like water are amazing. The preceding pages are some reasons why I believe in creation. Now im going to reply to all those who replied to my first post, which will also take a while so please bear with me.And I do have many more reasons for beleiving in a creator..im sure i will mention them in replies to others or in time.

My problem with evolution

A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.
A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory.
The theory of organic evolution falls into this category.

“Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact”- New York University professor, Irving Kristol


Where is evolutions solid evidence?

The Bible is a rich and varied text from which many opposite conclusions can be drawn, simply by looking at different sections. These verses here alternately suggest a stationary earth:

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

from http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com...eist-doctrine/

The whole point of a scripture can be taken from the context and the origional greek/hebrew languages. Job 26:7 clearly points to the earth as hanging upon nothing, having no supports.

In the original Hebrew, the word for “nothing” used here means “not any thing,” and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: “Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery.

metaphor, let me say that I commend you on your obviously long thought out post. I disagree with you entirely, but I appreciate the manner in which you are voicing your opinion.

I'll let yaarrgg deal with the bible interpretation issue, as I don't really know a whole lot about the bible. As to the origin of life issue though, I don't see how you can say that just because we can't reproduce it in laboratory experiments it isn't possible. By that logic, DNA did not exist until 1953, when the double helix model was confirmed.

Our unique planet.

I don't see this as evidence of creationism. If we didn't have all those factors, we wouldn't be alive to discuss it. The non-creationist theory says that out of all the uncountable planets out there, ours happened to hit upon the right combination of factors that allowed life to happen. If you're arguing that it's extremely unlikely that all these factors aligned by chance, then I would argue that it's even more unlikely for there to be some being out there with the power to create planets. Besides, how did God come to be? There had to be some sort of spontaneous creation in either case, and it seems more realistic to me to think that the tangible earth arose rather than a God.

Point im trying to make: Life can only come from Life. I dont think i need to go into detail about how that happens . Anyway, please prove otherwise.