Questions for creationists...?
603415
I hope you don't mind a copy and paste answer, but I don't see the need to rewrite this article in my own words and it does pertain to your question.\n\n_______________________________\n\n\nCreation Evidence - The Great Debate of Origins\nCreation Evidence is sought by Creationists to discredit Evolution, not to validate Special Creation… \n\nIt is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver. \n\nFamous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, Sir Arthur Keith, is quoted as saying, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable." However, this is not acceptable under general principles of science. Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." \n\n\nCreation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples:\n\n\nLack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. \n\nLack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far. \n\nTime Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in re
120182
I believe in creation, because I believe there is more scientific evidence to support it. The theory of evolution goes against all known science that we have accepted so far, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Try doing some open minded research on that one, it's pretty clear that evolution can't happen. Also, every evolutionist that I have ever talked to about evolution could not just sit down and discus their theory like true scientists. Instead, I have been called names such as "extremist" and "fundamentalist Christian" (I never meantioned religion or my beliefs, it was assumed), I have also been made fun of, and so on. But I have never been given the chance to really examen the theory. I really believe it's because there is not as much evidence as they say there is. I also believe there is a lot of evidence to support creation. I mean, come on, half of the evidence gathered for evolution could just as eaisly be interpreted to support creation, but that goes against mainstream science, so it is rejected. Trust me, I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I don't believe in evolution here, there are too many. But my suggestion to you is to do some research, and be open minded about it. If evolution has more evidence, go with it, and the same with creation. If God created the world, there will be evidence, we just need to find it. So do some research, there are a lot of good books and websites on the topic (watch out, there are a lot of really bad ones too that say nothing but lies on both sides). Two good ones are www.talkorigins.org (for evolution) and www.trueorigin.org (for creation, and some great responses to talkorigins.com). Good luck, and have fun:)
244532
I think it's so funny that so-called scholars believe in evolution.  I say let them believe, that just shows how stupid they are.  If evolution were true, I ask who caused it to start, I would still give God the credit.  If there was a "big bang", then it was God that caused it.
1173386
Yeah, the only people dumb enough to think you were really arguing for creationism were evolutionists.\n\nBecause your stupid question is exactly what evolutionists think creationism/Intelligent Design is about.  \n\nToo bad you people won't do any independent reading because we all know the public schools aren't going to broaden your knowledge of the topic.
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.
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.
680138
I'm having the same issue with my sets of questions (you can click on my avatar to see them).  Almost everyone who replied (one real exception) hasn't even bothered to try to answer the questions.  Yet these same people want creationisim taught in our science classes?\n\nI looked at both of your questions and they were good questions.  You were not doing anything wrong, just asking people to answer them.  I think you really do want to here what their answers are.  If you find any that actually do answer, send them to my questions as well please.
417092
People did not evolve from apes at all.  My beliefs tell me that God created all things and nothing evolved from anything.  If you want to know where you came from and what your here for I URGE you to go to fathersloveletter.com and watch.  TRUST ME!!!!  You will never have any questions about creation, apes, or what u are here for at all.  Good Luck and God Bless
292474
I think it makes plenty of sense.  I think evolution and creationism work side by side rather well...after all, how long is a day for God?  \n\nSort of the same way with the big bang when the universe was formed...\n...and God said, Let There Be Light....
152000
mrjeffy nailed it\n\nIn fact, most of the major creationists have long given up on this mistaken idea - thought it sure did take them a long time to understand it.
172145
This is a question that seems to come up a lot, but I love it anyway!\nIf the Bible is really God's word, then there is no problem at all with a literal 6 day creation story. (If you try to change that, then you have death before Adam sinned, and Eve could not be the mother of all living, etc ... disbelieving a literal 6 day creation will make you throw out more of the rest of the Bible than you get to keep.)\nI agree with the perspective that God could have created the earth with the appearance of age, created stars with light-years of light coming from them already, etc... I mean, if God can create everything, He can create it however he likes. (Side note on the age of the earth, did you know that according to evolution the earth is ageing millions of years per year? - Ask that one sometime!)\n\nBack when Darwin introduced the theory of Evolution to modern history (the idea goes back WAY before Darwin, but that's another story), he stated that for his theory to work, there must be evidence, and speculated on what it COULD look like - None exists today. Christians really dropped the ball on this one, and let this "theory" become equivalent to "science" (science must be observable and repeatable).\n\nIs there PROOF for creation? No (again, scientific proof must be observable and repeatable), there is not PROOF, but there is a lot more reasonable evidence that there is for creation.\n\nRegarding dinosours, the Bible actually speaks of them (and dragons) in the book of Job.\nSome remote cultures (The Congo, the Amazon, etc.) have recent (20th Century) stories of dinosaurs still living.\n\nThere's a lot more, but I don't want to get too long on you, so check out the link below for TONS more info, on this subject.
1100356
I wrote an article related to this... I hope you will take the time to really read it because it covers all the questions that you are asking. I wrote this paper not to accuse others... but to defend my faith in light of statements people ask concerning my faith in light of what I have learned from science. \n\n"Biblical Creationism: Fact or Myth? \nScientific Evidences for Skeptics to Ponder"\n\nDo you know what life is? I believe it's like a science experiment. We're here to find out why we are here. Unless you know a better reason, I'd say, it is to be skeptical and figure things out. \n\nIn case you didn't know; "skeptic" is a Greek word that means "to examine". We need to examine all the evidence and make up our minds what the truth is. I think that a lot of people get college degrees but devote themselves to one particular school of thought. They follow those thoughts without question and enjoy the mutual companionship of their closed group of peers. Most never realize that their grand theories are founded on mere presuppositions that have little to do with the facts.\n\nI think that a lot of people would believe in God right now if He personally appeared to them. If God appeared to anyone, in any form, it would be enough to convince them it was really Him! But then we wouldn't have a choice; no opportunity to grasp love's concepts. God does not want to force us to follow Him; just be willing to make that choice for ourselves!\n\nThink about it; all the ancient religions taught that the universe had no beginning,... but one. Some taught that gods came out of sort of a watery substance and that the earth was made through great upheavals and violence between the gods. A religion is worthless unless it is grounded in scientific facts! If there is such a religion today, then we better find out what the truth is in all this!\n\nI believe the God of the Bible is the most logical explanation for our universe as we know it today. Consider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect. The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!\n\nSecond, the Cause must be independent of it's effect. It can not be required to depend it's existence upon the universe. For nothing can change from a state of nothingness.\n\nThird, the Cause must be infinitely powerful! If it were limited, it would have to be confined by some other thing. It can not be limited by nothing and if it were limited, it would not be independent any longer. The effect can not be greater than the cause. The Cause has to be greater than the effect! It has to be greater than all the forces of the universe combined!\n\nFourth, the first Cause must be eternal. The creator must exist outside of time. The God of the Bible stated this in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. All the other religions honored harvest gods, war gods, moon gods, sun gods, animal-headed gods, fertility gods and goddesses. In fact, most of these gods were restricted to time as well as location. (1)\n\nFifth, the first Cause must be spiritual. Only an entity outside the universe could have created it. It must be beyond the physical elements. John 4:24 states that God is Spirit.\n\nSixth, the first Cause must be all-knowing. The creator created the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "The harmony of natural law... reveals and intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an
862281
You must have a lot of time to spare if you invite creationists to "debate" with you. You cannot convince them of the truth because they don't want the truth. They have no understanding of scientific method or principles. The scientific world accepts evolution and continues accumulating molecular evidence that shows beyond any doubt evolution has occurred. There is a Mount Everest of evidence out there, yet every creationist/IDer ignores it. Why? They are not interested in truth.\n\nThe world has moved on - IDers are wallowing in the dark ages. Do yourself a favour, do something where you will achieve an outcome. Talking with creationists won't get you there.\n\n(As a rule of thumb - the more rabid the creationist, the worse the spelling and grammar. There IS a correlation, I swear!)
79540
Creationism by our Creator. And the evolution theory would be okay if it werent contradictory to scripture... The bible says He created everything according to its kind.  See Genesis 1:20.  Also if we evolved, why are we not stil evolving?
544425
I have responded to the 'creationist' argument on a number of occasions.\n\nBasically people like to argue based on a premise that cannot be argued (i.e. prove God doesn't exist and wasn't responsible ... obviously impossible to prove).\n\nIn terms of the whole creationist argument I agree that evolution is flawed (remember though the Bible is CLEARLY flawed as it is contradictory and suggests behaviour that would get you arrested today) but it makes much more sense to an independent person (if there is such a thing) than the whole 'man in the sky got bored one day and knocked up a planet'.\n\nWhile arguing the whole fossils give incomplete record thing they never seem to explain the existence of dinosaurs which, for some reason, seem to get very low coverage in the Bible.\n\nOverall I am happy to respect other peoples rights to their beliefs but not necessarily their beliefs ... I would hope they would do me the courtesy of the same.  The problem with most creationists is that they infer stupidity on the part of non believers.\n\nPeace out
476875
Look through the website linked below. It answers pretty much all the points that creationists keep bringing up over and over.
983838
Darwin never "withdrew" his theory, nice try.\n\nYou're right there were lots of storms and meteorites.  For all we know, life needed a couple of tries to get started.\n\nJust the fact that you are asking whether we came from monkeys or from goo, shows that you either have NO idea what evolution is about or are just trying to get a rise out of people.  You bore me.