If creationism is true, why is there still dirt?
917404
More important. If man was made from dirt, why is dirt not still turning into people?
427234
The Book of Genesis deals with the fact that God created the earth. It was written in a manner that could be understood by primitive wandering cultures. Now we can say that the Bible is wrong about creation or that science does not have it right as far as creation is concerned. I don't agree with either point. I believe the best way to look at this is God created everything. How God did this, is still a mystery to we humans that are His  one of His creations.\n\nEvolution is a theory that is still listed as unproven. This means that Evolution is our best guess at this time with the evidence we now have of how our world and the life within it came into being and now exists. It does not mean that it is the way it happened. As with the Bible we have to live in faith.
868498
I completely agree with you. I've done my research and evolution in reality has not been proven. It is the media that propagates the myth of evolution, even brainwashing children with pictures of monkey-men in textbooks to do it. They've even go so far as to make whole skeletal structures of out of small bone fragments in order to provide "physical proof" of evolution, like with "Piltdown Man", a fraud  that was not discovered as a fraud until 40 years after it was made. It's a big lie, one of the greatest frauds in history. Even Darwin said, "If evolution has occurred, where are the missing links?"\nBelief in God and science is completely compatible. In fact, the Bible has a lot of scientific foreknowledge that "scientists" didn't even discover until centuries later, even just in the last century when it was right in front of them all along.\nThe Bible says it was God who made everything, and that it was God who established laws that hold everything in its place. Hence to see science for what it really is is to see the fingerprint of God.
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:)
222212
OK, I will put this nice and simply.  There is absolutely no scientifically credible evidence that supports creationism, or the idea that we originated from two individuals.  Faith is a wonderful thing but is not a substitute for evidence.
419185
I always find it interesting how people assume that science and religion are irreconcilable.  It is possible to believe in both and it is possible that God does exist and that the big bang theory is what created the earth.  Many creationists approach the creation theory from a fundamentalist perspective.  The Bible is full of metaphors and figurative language.  It is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.  Perhaps God provided the catalyst for the big bang making both creationism and science accurate.  Just a theory.
384887
because evolution is false.
1087456
Evolution has scientific evidence. Creationism has none. Progressive creation is a poor compromise that favors religion and there is no evidence for it. Evolution has never been falsified in 150 years.
398979
Therein lies the basic conflict between creationism and evolution - In a creationist view, we are Ascended or above all other species, because we were created by God as the prime species on the planet. The governors of Earth and all it's lands and animals.\nIn an evolutionary sense, we descended from a common ancestor that is related to the plains' apes and gorillas, but diverged at some unknown time in the distant past, approx 5-7 million years ago. Evolution scientists are hunting for this missing link so they can prove that this is a fact - however - this missing link has not been found, and until it is - there is no hard evidence to back up a evolutionary claim.
532397
I don't know how old the earth actually is, I don't think anyone does for sure!\n\nThat being said, If you are a Christian this subject of argument is completely pointless. Christians don't really care "how old the planet is". And we don't really care how many scientist try and prove what the bible says about it wrong! Most, if not all of us will always take God's word over mans!\n\nIf someone is a non believer, then I guess this becomes more important, as most need some sort of "proof".\n\nI don't have any documentation or scientific studies to share with you, only the word of God..... take it or leave it.
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.
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!
669415
>>>>Is Creationism really science?\n\nNo. Science requires that a theory be potentially able to be proved wrong by readily collected data. Nobody can provide a list of observations that would falsify creationism. Therefore creationism fails the basic test for being science.\n\n>>>> Is it totally based upon relegious beliefs from the >>>> Bible....\n\nNo, it is mostly based on tradition and superstition. The majority of people who base their religious beliefs on the Bible are not Young Earth Creationists.\n\n>>>>>what is the basis of Evolution?\n\nObservational evidence and repeatable experiments. Over a hundred years of observational evidence and repeatable experiments.\n\n\n>>>Does it have a basis beyond observation?\n\nNot really, unless you want to consider the observation of experimental results "Beyond observation". All science is based on observation of evidence.\n\n>>>> By definition can science, or scientific investigation,\n>>>> include observations beyond the five senses?\n\nOf course it can. Science routinely investigates things like  ultraviolet light or the population dynamics of bacteria or the interactions of subatomic particles. None of those things can be observed with any of the five senses.\n\nScience has no problem with accepting observations beyond the five senses.\n\nThe only requirement is that either the observations be replicable or the conclusions be falsifiable. If disinterested observes can repeat your observations you can use the observations of a Native American spirit guide and still be engaged in top level science.
7283
It depends on which theory of creation you believe.  \n\nIf you subscribe to the theory of evolution, the Earth is believed to be approimately 5 billion years old.\n\nIf, however, you base the age of the earth on the bible, the earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
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.
677385
Creationist stories were written to explain what could no be explained by science, specifically, where we came from.  Science has since explained this with the theory of evolution.  Evolution is what really happened; creationism was simply created to fill the holes until we figured it out.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, bu
510900
If the Bible is true then it belongs to another Universe. All the laws of Science and not just evolution will be false in such a scenario.\n\nThe Bible says the world began 5000 years ago.\n\nScience says its been around for 4.5 billion years.\n\nAnd Science is not false.\n\nYou accept Einstein's theory but not that of the evolutionists. \n\nThis only enforces the fact that RELIGION IS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE.\n\nYou are only trying to play off one theory against the other without understanding that they are all part of the grand framework\n\nDo you have any evidence that Eden existed ?\n\nListen, this forum is for meaningful constructive discussion. Please move all your banterings on "GOD" and "religion" elsewhere.