If creationism is correct, riddle me this?
601469
You are describing unique experiences. God is everything so God gets to experience being the whale and the plankton. There is a lot to learn from every interaction. God is not perfect or complete. God is becoming. Growing and learning through all life.\nLove & Light\nSharon\nOne Planet = One People
1088968
Creationists believe in the bible. Their belief in the bible is arranged like a house of cards. Its validity depends upon every card being in place to support the others. Take away one card - such as what the bible says about the origin of mankind - and their entire faith collapses. That's a terribly painful, emotionally and intellectually, experience for them. It's more comfortable to deny science and go on blindly believing.
1018036
I understand what you're saying -- I believe in the theory of evolution.  But you do realize that people are just going to say God put it there in the beginning?  As fossils -- not as ancient creatures imprinted or encased in stone.
20811
Creationism and evolution are unrelated theories, describing entirely two different things. Creationism says that god created the universe and life on earth.\n\nEvolution says that once life started on earth, however that may have happened, certain natural processes started taking place in which new species evolved. This is undisputable and supported completely by the fossil record. HOW the new species came about has not been completely shown and is a matter of much contention among scientists. It is possible that some supernatural force is behind it, but we will likely never know.
1099072
Here's a list of silly creationist claims and how to debunk them:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
376973
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?
797870
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
33692
Beatz, Beatz, Beatz.  What were you thinking?  You should have known that there would be nothing but appeals to ignorance poffered as evidence as answers to your question.  What's worse is that, even though people like Behe make those continual suggestions that a lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation, so much of what creationists claim has not been explained has been.  From immune systems to eyeballs, it's all been done in the journals.\n\nI'm not sure which is more pathetic... the fact that the creationist position is based off of a logical fallacy, or that they aren't even right when they keep chanting their "Science hasn't explained this" mantra.  I used to be a Christian, and from that I can say, absolutely, that the kind of lazyness and willful dishonesty displayed by people of this sort is NOT a good way of emulating Christ.\n\nAnyway, I've seen some of your posts, and I like them a lot.  Keep up the good work.\n\n[EDIT]: Jesus Christ Rob... before you open your mouth to talk about thermodynamics again, you might want to, you know, actually learn something about thermodynamics.  You have completely botched both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  You cannot draw conclusions from flimsy, qualitative, and innacurate paraphrasings of precise quantitative laws.  I'm getting tired of putting this old chesnut back down every time one of Hovind's lackeys digs it up again, so I'm going to send you here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\nand here:\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6JrBwCTk&isbn=0226075745&itm=1\nand I'll mention these:\n"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun." (See Rob? That's what happens when you ignore that whole "closed system" part of the Second Law).\nand:\n"Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up." -Michael Shermer\n\nAnd one other thing: that "mutations are always fatal and not beneficial" stuff is utter bunk.  Everyone reading this now is carring multiple mutant genes.  Can you taste litmus paper?  Or see the 3-D images in the magic eye pictures?  Congratulations: you're a mutant.  There are many very harmful mutations, yes.  But by admitting that, you are also admitting that natural selection does indeed happen.  As for beneficial mutations, those happen also, and have been exhaustively documented:\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html\nAnd I'd also like you to ask yourself what makes a mutation beneficial.  And then think about your answer.  And then realize that that is ALSO exactly what is meant by natural selection.
725002
Why bother asking a scientific question to creationists? Creationism is not a science, period, so they wouldn't know the answer anyway.
1133128
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
766101
Creationism is not science and can never be science. A fundamental point of anything scientific is that it is constantly being revised every time a new fact appears. That is the way evolution works. Millions of new facts have appeared since the 1800s and all of them have been able to easily fit into a theory that is flexible and predictive. \n\nOne of the characteristics of science is that it has falsifiability - that is, you have to explain what proof you would accept that your theory is wrong. Evolution would be wrong if there was any meaningful evidence that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Evolution would be wrong if there was no evidence that animals are related to each other. But despite desperate searching, the anti-evolutionists have not come up with any evidence for either of these points. \n\nOn the other hand, the creationist guys refuse to explain what evidence they would accept that creationism is wrong. That alone means that they cannot be regarded as scientific and that alone makes their viewpoint a religious one which ought to be excluded from science classrooms. That is the legal position in the USA, confirmed over and over by many courts - most recently last summer when a very conservative judge appointed by President Bush threw out a case where some Pennsylvania religious fanatics were trying to get creationism taught in school. The judge gave them a tongue lashing and told them to stop wasting the court's time!
754465
Sure. \nLike Southpark said, evolution answers the question how, and religion answers the question why.
597485
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here, you start with one question and end with a second one.  Frankly, I am not sure that I understand the first question.\n\nFirst let me start by saying that when we try to make scientific facts line up with the writings in Genesis, there are discrepancies.\n\nThe nature of time is somewhat poorly understood, to say the least.  The statements made by both Hawkins and Einstein are attempts to explain the nature of time.  Granted that these two men are among the most brilliant men ever, but they are still men.\n\nWe should take each version of the creation of the universe and keep asking "Where did that come from?" or "How?"\n\nWe would eventually ask the creationist: "Where did God come from?"  or, "How did God do that?"  The answer to each of these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSimilarly, we would eventually ask the evolutionist: "Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?" or "How did matter form into the elements that we know?"  The answer for these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSo both the evolutionist and the creationist are stuck with the answer "We don't know." or even "God (or the matter) just always was there."  Does that mean that neither one is right?  No.  Does it mean that both are right?  No, again.  Each view requires some amount of faith.\n\nNow, about science being wrong.  Yes, Yes, Yes!  Science can afford to be wrong and often is.  The whole premise of science is that we come up with a theory, test it and make adjustments when we are wrong.  We often learn more by being wrong than by being right.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
95264
I looked at the reviews of the books you mentioned on amazon.com. From what I can tell, I am afraid they do not offer much in the way of solid technical arguments or new discussions or reasons that creationism or a young earth hypothesis must be chosen over the current dominant accepted theories. The "experts" in the book "In Six Days" offer little that has not been dismissed before as specious arguments. Unfortunately, although these 50 gentlemen have PhDs, they are offering opinions in areas well outside their areas of expertise, in most cases. Many of arguments violate well-known scientific principles and laws.  \n\nI do applaud the creationists for trying to compile books that state their arguments and reasoning. We definitely need more of these, and we need to approach this subject with more intellectual honesty and integrity than has been evidenced in the past. \n\nI myself feel I could write a far more compelling book supporting faith that would be far more careful, if I was so inclined. I feel more of a general awe of creation, somewhat similar to that of Einstein, or Thomas Jefferson, or Newton. \n\nIt is disappointing and disconcerting that so far, these kinds of products produced by the religious community have hurt more than they have helped, have discredited those of religious faith and cast them in a bad light. They have tended to lend support for the opposite point of view, and have not succeeded as intended I am sorry to say.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nAddendum:\n\nYes I am being honest. I have often been struck by some of the most amazing structures in science when I have been doing scientific investigations or learning about science. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes. I think that this is where religious people should direct their attention if they want to grasp the incredible majesty of creation. And it has the advantage that it is beautiful in structure, and unassailable, and compltely scientifically rigorous. \n\nHowever, I am not sure how many people of faith want to undertake a 15+ year journey into abstruse mathematics and physics, or are willing to approach it with a completely open mind. In fact, what I would ask is, if one is absolutely sure of one's faith, then would it not make sense to allow science to continue to unravel the mysteries of nature? After all, if you are positive what the conclusion will be, let them bolster your arguments with facts. If I am not mistaken, this has been the Vatican's approach for some decades.
615094
Nice thought on your part. Seems you can think better than most creationists, evolutionists, natural history scientists, bible teachers, and bible scholars. Now do not get a big head, just be content that you did think of the question and did ask it.\n\nIf you are serious why don't you ask this of your God even if your God is yourself and then be silent and do listen for an answer. Then when an answer does come to mind check it out for possible constantly consistent truth. That means truly no matter what view you have of the answer in your mind there is not a single flaw.\n\nThis very question is one of the major divisions in the world and does serve to prevent good communication in all the above areas of study, education, and actual in a social life on this planet mankind calls earth  With the present position taken by most there is absolutely no sign of improvement in sight. So be it, for now that seems to be the plan of the one who is in charge of all this creation whether it be a "BIG BANG" "CHANCE", or any other God. In my case it is My God, but I find few will embrace My God.\n\nAnyway you do give that question a lot of serious thought and maybe you can find an answer that will be acceptable to you. While doing that do smile and have a great day\n\n\n.
518798
"Creationists" are functionally illiterate, so what else would you expect?\n\nAnyone who defines "evidence" to mean "because I said so" is clearly illiterate. And that is all the "evidence" they have to support the "creation" argument.\n\nThe universe has always existed and was not created by anyone or anything.