Faith vs. Fact (Creation vs. Evolution)

[John T 744]

If you look at the news you will see that people put religion way up there. They Live by it and they will die for it. 9-11 for example.

Why do people have blind faith?? My Nephew who is very intelligent and somewhat religious attends Rutgers University. He went to an organize debate titled EVOLUTION v. CREATION. Evolution is more or less stating that we came from a cell and went from there. Creation is that God put us here(Adam and Eve) and we came from there.

The debate in a nut shell went like this....All the facts that the Evolution side put on the table the Creation side tried to tear it apart but the Creation side really couldn't put up any facts for themselves since there side is built on faith and hearsay(Bible which is past down thru men/women)

So I ask why do people put faith ahead of fact? Is it a character flaw that we as humans have?? Is it the guilt that is bread in us that if we don't believe in God we are terrible people and we will go staight to.......

In the shortest words possible since most of us can write a book about this ---Why do you think Faith does thru-out the Planet beat Fact most of the time when it comes to Religion???

[PLD 14]

Paul,

If you wish to make a case for creationism, please do so. Otherwise, you are accomplishing nothing. Even if evolutionary theory is completely wrong, that still does not validate creationism. No more that it validates panspermia, scientology, etc.

As for your comment about "Most evolutionists do not believe in God". It is a great sound bite and certainly does a good job of rallying support for your cause by painting us to be immoral, Godless heathens. But like much of what you have posted it simply is not supported by fact. Repeated Gallup polling shows that;

~45% of Amercians believe in creationism.

~40% believe in God & evolution.

~9% are Atheistic

~4% have no opinion.

That means that only 18% of evolutions are athestic. A far cry from "most"

Also, just because *a* scientific theory (or a portion thereof) becomes invalidated, it does not mean that ALL scientific theories become invalidated by association. But, I suspect that you already knew that since you probably go to the doctor, take medicine, have x-rays, etc. I find it quite ironic actually. The same people who are use bloodletting to cite the inherent fallability of science (and hence impugne evolution), would have no problem getting their blood drawn for a test, or taking 4 units if they were in a car accident.

Furthermore, please excuse my presumptiousness in judging your expertise in the field of physics. After all, I only spent a four short years in the study physics for years working on my degree. But, if I may make a small suggestion based on my limited experience? Please do a bit deal more reading on the science topics you have comment on. There's just a wee bit more to the subject than meets the eye in a 100 word news release.

Finally, your manner of debate by attack, fallacious arguments, and general FUD makes it impossible to engage in an intelligent dialog. How can you expect anyone short of Forrest Gump on meth to address your endless volley of highly repetitive questions peppered with questionable facts? I strongly suspect that you don't expect them to. Knowing that no your opponent cannot possibly respond at such a rapid pace for any length of time, you simply persist in your assault until they tire, inject the last word, and claim victory. Well, I am there so let me be the first to say...

Congratulations, you win!

Philip

How would someone believing in evolution explain which evolved first:

A male or a female, or by accident both a male and female evolved (simultaniously).

If a male evolved first, how did it recreate? Or are we now to assume that humans were a-sexual before evolving into male and female sexes?

"Most" evolutionists do not believe in God, and most believe in a single life.

"Most" people question something about the bible and our reason for being here on earth.

I do not think everything in the bible is stated literally.

The old testament had a lot of health and living related guidelines in it - where not to go to the bathroom, what foods to eat, the necessity for cleanliness - and a lot more.

I don't believe that God stood by to watch man evolve from a single cell.

The same as I do not believe that there is a 100% chance that man would have evolved from a single cell based on survival of the fittest and a series of accidents.

Humans grow stronger, taller, live longer - but I don't call that evolution.

What I call evolution is if we grew a third and a fourth arm - I sure could use one or two more most of the time.

They do have a way of measuring the speed of light and my original statement stands - I believe I posted on the subject here when the landmark event hit the news.

My other statement is also true about scientists being able to "see" smaller particles because of technology breakthroughs.

I believe also that the statement: "Matter can not be created or destroyed" is meant as: "In nature, matter..." Whether man can destroy matter or not is still a question since we can only see objects that are soooo small - what if the particles are even smaller, as we have discovered?

[Paul B. 523]

Phillip,

Why must you take things so personnally when nothing was directed at you personally. In this post I have made no judgement of individuals other than I agree or don't agree with their beliefs in context of discussion. SORRY I OFFENDED YOU!

"...painting us to be immoral, Godless heathens."

You've put words into my mouth - I neither stated nor meant such things of people I don't know. If you have feelings of guilt, please don't blame them on me.

In fact, I believe you can believe in God and still be immoral and a heathen of sorts. You can also believe in the "sun god" or "scientology" - neither offends me.

The Gallop Poll - in context, has more meaning than out of context, but your point is taken - My statement should have been better qualified (other than MOST - poorly chosen).

Why do you think so many people believe in creationism and evolution at the same time? Is it maybe because in the name if science it was decided to teach (in public schools) kids evolution of man before they have had gathered ALL scientific evidence. How many of those (do you think) that were surveyed and said they believe in God actually go to church or have read the bible from cover to cover? How many do you think understand how large the gaps are in proving human evolution from a single cell to human form. How many, do you think, have thought about and understand the dilemma between evolution and creationism? (You don't have to answer all questions - as most are rhetorical and food for thought.)

My point in regards to scientific thinking was again taken out of context - I believe in science and just because science makes mistakes I don't discredit all science. However, in the case of evolutionism - science has taken a very large leap in stating it as fact when they also say there are a lot of gaps and even they admit top not knowing for sure. What other scientific field makes such large leaps and bounds without having better and more complete information? I think a lot of us know the answer to that one?

I yield to your knowledge in current physics, however at least one of the subjects in discussion has not been entered into any school books, YET. The other is a fact of news (regardless of your acknowledgement).

Neither had to do with the "Energy Vacuum" - but the speed of light.

Regarding doctors: I keep on eye on things they do because they still don't know as much about medicine as they profess and because they call the profession practicing. I've had three incidents where relatives were injured by the medical field; one passed, and two avoided fatality due to the fact that someone (a non-medical person) was watching over them and helped avoid tragedy. Science is only as good as the person that holds it in their hands!

"Again, false dichotomy. How about God created and set into motion a system to create humans? Or God could care less about humans, but created a universe for his own amusement and humans resulted?

Did it ever occur to you that God created the earth specifically for worms and roaches and we were placed here as nothing more than food for them? And that our intelligence was given to us only to enhance our ability to kill each other, thus ensuring a continuing food supply?

There are a hundred different reasons why the belief in God and the belief in evolution are not diametrically opposed. It is only when you assume that man is the center of Gods world that it becomes a problem."

Appearantly you believe in "A god", but not the same one I believe in. The one I believe in created humans (hence creationism) in his image, He said (not for worm food or his own amusement - besides, I doubt He would be amused at some of the things we do).

You ask proof of creationism - Just look around. Isn't there enough proof for you? Appearently not! You're looking for a lot of scientific facts which on the other hand you disprove with evolution (A sieve in itself, based on incomplete theories and incomplete bits and pieces of so called evidence, yet it's labelled as scientific proof. Science was intended to be accurate, with proveable theories). If you can believe all this was by accident - because evolution to the point of where we are today would have to be called an accident - since any alterations (chemical, climate, migratory, etc.) during the time line would have created different results (gills, three eyes, three arms, etc., - anything other than what we have today). Which in my eyes makes evolution an accident and makes evolution and creationism very much opposing.

[Paul B. 523]

As a side note:

The Gollop Poll does not represent a world survey; the US does not represent the way the entire world thinks. Majority of Gallop polls quiry much less than 10% of the population and project the rest. In reality the percentage is normally very low (at times much less than 1% of the population) for the US. The polls are hardly considered scientific based on how the questions are asked, and the fact that they can be rather squewed in any direction (intended or not).

[PLD 14]

qed...

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Paul,

Thanks for that post showing independent thinking. I agree with you on that one.

Rod!~

[Deck Guy 14]

As a side note:

The Gollop Poll does not represent a world survey; the US does not represent the way the entire world thinks. Majority of Gallop polls quiry much less than 10% of the population and project the rest. In reality the percentage is normally very low (at times much less than 1% of the population) for the US. The polls are hardly considered scientific based on how the questions are asked, and the fact that they can be rather squewed in any direction (intended or not).

Paul, you make the mistake that many people make assuming that a scientific poll is about asking a few people what they think, then publishing the results. Scientific polling takes into account the education, background, ethnicities, education, etc. of those polled, then extrapolates the number to assume they represent a certain portion of the population.

Persons who are polled are given lengthy questionaires regarding all manner of the above items. Then they are questioned or polled regarding a specific item.

For example...If the pollsters knew you were born to a protestant family in a large city, with two older siblings, and a blue collar father and a stay-at-home mother. And they knew your favorite color was blue, and that you strongly dislike midgets, and that you have two years of college studying art history. They also know that you plan on getting married and having two children, but no pets, since you are allergic to cats...and on and on. The pollsters can now group you with a certain percentage of population.

When they ask you if, for example, if you support gay marriage, they assume that similar people with similar interests, similar educations, similar family backgrounds etc, will feel the same way. Not only that, but they will poll a certain number of people in your group to see how many of these agree with you.

Let's say they poll a total of only four thousand people. Knowing that your group represents 3% of the population, but that only 2/3 of those in your group agree with you, they can say with reasonable scientific certainty that if they polled all people in your group (with your background) that 2/3 of them would feel the same as you. Now, knowing what precentage of the population your group represents (lets say for arguments sake, 1.0125%), they then can assume that 2/3 of that precentage or .67 of the population feels as you do. That's how they arrive at their numbers.

Many (if not most) people have a complete misunderstanding of scientific polling, assuming that people are simply called and asked their opinions, and the responses are then multiplied as representative samples of the population, when in fact, polling is quite different, as well as accurrate. It's quite a science in itself.

[Paul B. 523]

I agree that they ask a lot of questions and it's stated as scientific, but a lot of times they don't ask the appropriate question to obtain accurate results. In this instance, how you pose the question can make a difference. (I went thru this often as a design and project manager during my engineering career. The customer would ask a question from one of the designers or engineers and they would get one answer, since I was more aware of the background information on the subject, I went back and ask the same question but with more detail or more specifics and we would get different results.)

In this case for example:

If they ask me if I believe in God and Evolution they would get one answer.

If they asked me if I believe in God and Evolution of man from a single cell to human form they would get a totally different result.

If they asked me if I believed in God and Evolution of man from ape to human they may possible get a third result. (yes, no, maybe, not sure, etc.)

My other and main point was that this is a world subject not a subject specific to any town or country. Assuming the poll was accurate, if you did one in China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil or South Africa, the results would be different from the US and different from each other. For example, in communist countries there are a lot more people who were / are atheists due to the fact that the government did not allow churches to exist or to flourish and at the same time heavily pushed (starting with the youngest in 1st garde or earlier) the theory of Evolution. I grew up in a communist country and I've seen it with my own eyes. In some countries if you spoke of religion the following day you may have dissappeared to be seen 5-10 years later or never. In dictator's eyes, religion is a threat, God is seen as a threat, therefore creationism is a threat.

There are many groups of people out there with different beliefs (atheist, agnostics, deists/free thinkers, infidels and unbelievers, etc.) that if not asked the question a specific way, may provide an answer they would not have given if the question was phrased differently.

[PLD 14]

I agree that they ask a lot of questions and it's stated as scientific, but a lot of times they don't ask the appropriate question to obtain accurate results.

Larry,

Save yourself the aggravation and get out now. It does not matter what type of evidence you present for your argument, or how credible the source may be. If Paul disagrees with his position, he will question it's validity and validity of it's source. You will be expecte to provide compelling evidence of the validity of both. It's an debate tactic called arugment Ad Hominem. It is generally accepted as being intellectually illegitimate, and employed only when being right is more important that reaching the truth. Argument ad hominem is most often used to distract from the issue at hand when the party employing it lacks evidence for their own argument. It's most famous public use was probably in the OJ Simpson defense.

Also, once you have managed to support your evidence Paul will then change the issue at hand and question another aspect of the issue. This tactic is called argument of impossible perfection or more commonly "moving the goalposts". It obtained the latter name because no matter how far you advance your argument, when you reach the goal line you will find that it has been moved farther away. With a new goal established, you will once again be expected to make an argument, support that argument, etc. And this case, defend your evidence, it's sources, etc. (see 1st paragraph again).

Finally, if you do manage to successfully return a few volleys you will find that they will start coming in groups of 4 or 5 five at a time. And you will be expected to go through the aforementioned processes for each and every question in the salvo. This is technically called argument by barrage, but I prefer to call it the Missile Command defense after the video game of the name. That meaning, no matter how good you are there will always be a next wave and it will come in faster and larger than the last.

The bottom line is very simple. Debating anything with Paul is a complete waste of time and energy and an exercise in frustration. He has no intention of supporting his position, but will gladly sit back and shoot yours full of holes. If you do confront him about his position, you will receive nothing more than a trite response such as "Just look around".

If you are compelled to continue this debate, I would suggest that you go outside and start shouting your case into a empty trash can or barrel. You will accomplish about the same thing, and your fingers won't be nearly as tired.

Philip

[Mike Williamson 198]

Absolutely incredible! Why isn't CNN & Fox carrying the story?

Because, like you, the folks at CNN and Fox don't believe it. And of course, since these things didn't happen in the middle of Times Square with hundreds of credible, "intelligent" witnesses to verify them, there is no "proof".

That, and Fox, CNN, and all the rest of the news outlets report what people want to hear. People for the most part don't want to hear about this kind of stuff. It makes most people uncomfortable, even those who claim to be Christians.

For those of us who believe the bible to be God's word, and accurate in its accounts of God's interaction with man, stories like this are very credible. Jesus raised people from the dead when he was here on earth, and did so through the actions of His apostles after He ascended...So why is it so hard to believe He still does those things today? Just because in this nation of people who put more faith in doctors things like that don't happen here much doesn't mean God doesn't respond to faith and desperate need where He does find it.

Is God different today than He was 2000 years ago?

[PLD 14]

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Somehow, I just have a big problem with Christ manifesting himself on earth through Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson.

For those of us who believe the bible to be God's word, and accurate in its accounts of God's interaction with man, stories like this are very credible. Jesus raised people from the dead when he was here on earth, and did so through the actions of His apostles after He ascended...So why is it so hard to believe He still does those things today? Just because in this nation of people who put more faith in doctors things like that don't happen here much doesn't mean God doesn't respond to faith and desperate need where He does find it.

Is God different today than He was 2000 years ago?

[Mike Williamson 198]

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Somehow, I just have a big problem with Christ manifesting himself on earth through Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson.

No doubt there have been, are, and will be false prophets. Does that mean we discount ALL miracles?

And who says God CAN'T manifest himself through Pat or Benny? I'm not saying He does, but I'm certainly not going to say He never does. Does one have to be perfect, or even right, for God to use them? If Benny Hinn lays hands on someone and they're healed, do I doubt the healing, or do I praise God for answering that person's faith?

I've seen people healed. Miraculously, with no other explanation than just that God did it. Right then. I've been healed in this manner, not of anything major, but of minor things. My wife has been healed.

I've never seen anyone raised from the dead, but I know people who have. It usually happens elsewhere, in dirt poor 3rd world countries where they have NOTHING but God. It doesn't happen here much, because here in America, we really don't have the faith. We don't believe God can REALLY do it. But in other places, that's ALL they have...and they believe God really CAN do it. They walk for days to attend a worship service or to get prayed for.

I've learned never to doubt what God can do. He's as much a miracle worker today as He was 2000 years ago. If people choose to reject that, well, that's their loss, not mine.

[PLD 14]

No doubt there have been, are, and will be false prophets. Does that mean we discount ALL miracles?

Nope. But some miracles require a little more scrutiny than others. Poor family with sick child wins the lottery, easy to believe. TV minister raises the dead, gotta have a little more than someones word.

[kevinw 14]

I've been reading this thread for some time, started to respond, changed my mind, back and forth...then decided to add a slightly different perspective. Let me give some credentials...I've very well educated, heavy college background in chemistry, biology...and a smattering of physics. VP of Sales and Marketing for large corporations. Most importantly, I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Gives you an idea where this is going, doesn't it.

I don't see God's work as a magic show. In other words, when I see a magician do a trick, I wonder "how did he do that?" I know it isn't real, and am curious how it was done. My perspective on God is simple, He's God and I'm not...He doesn't owe me an explanation. I have no doubt that He's done what He's done, and if He wanted me to know how...or if it was important for me to know how...He would explain it to me. I believe that is part of Faith, believing without understanding.

Does that make me stupid or dull? I don't believe so, I believe that God intends me to spend my time focusing on the things I'm supposed to be doing...not wondering what He's up to.

I attended a seminar many years ago by a nuclear physicist, astro-physicist...or something. Incredible credentials. He wrote a book on how God can be omniscient and omnipresent...know everthing and be in all places at all times. He explained physic's theories that went into bending time and space...very impressive. I had no idea of what he was talking about. As I left, a friend of mine asked me if I understood it. I answered, "Nope." He asked me if it bothered me that I didn't understand it. I answered, "Nope." He stopped me and asked me why it didn't bother me. My answer, "It doesn't matter if I understand." Whether I understand, or don't understand, doesn't change anything...and the fact that I don't understand and can't understand is the reason...He's God, and I'm not.

If He's truly God and truly spun this universe into existence with the power of His thought...am I really ever going to understand how He did it, or how long it took, or whether 7 days and nights were really 7 days and nights as I know it?

We can't argue evolution...it's going on everywhere. Life on this planet is evolving as we speak. The example that comes to mind is common bacteria...it has evolved to be more resistant to the antibiotics used against it...that is evolution. Not a theory, a fact.

On the other hand, evolution as the generation of life or evolution of man from more primitive species...not so apparent. Just as many arguments for as against. Life started by evolution vs. creationism? I don't believe scientific fact supports life started by evolution...too many huge, gaping holes. Could God have started life through evolution? Yes. Could God have started life by simple creation? Yes. Which was it? I don't know, I'll ask Him some day...but probably not...when I get to that point, I don't think I'll care how He did it anymore.

Does it really matter which way it happened? If you're asking "does it matter how God started life?" My answer is no. If you're asking whether God did it...or it just sprouted up on day...the facts all point toward God.

Now, I know that's going to launch a whole long debate about whether they do or don't...and that's going to fall back into that unproducting conversation thing. It doesn't really matter, does it? We're here...we're life. You either believe, or you don't. If you don't believe, I can't make you..can I? I know God can...how's He going to do it? I don't know, He's God and I'm not He's done it before, He can do it again...if that is what He wants to do.

I believe the challenge for us is to avoid being distracted by unproductive, unfruitul discussions and arguments. They cause us to get de-railed from what we're supposed to be doing.

Lastly, the last discussion about miracles and false prophets. Miracles truly do surround us every day. My son is alive today because of a miracle. He wasn't supposed to live. However, before taking a few verses from the Bible to make a point, it's important to know what the whole thing says.

God can use the influence of the Benny Hinn's of the world for His purposes. He said he could even make the rocks sing His praises if He wanted to hear praises...if he can use a rock, I believe He can even use Benny Hinn.

The careful part for all of us is picking and choosing what we believe and don't. God clearly says you believe, or you don't...no "kinda" believing. If we start re-defining who God is based on the part we believe, we are accepting some and rejecting the other. Then, we have successfully created God...in our image. He's the god we want him to be, not the God He is. That is called a false god. The Old Testament refers to that god as "Ashteroth", a personal god we make for ourselves when none of the other gods are what we want.

Then, when we meet the real God...we have a problem.

The debate is healthy. We're never asked to just be blind and dumb and never ask questions. "Search Me and try Me says the Lord of Hosts." I've done that for nearly 50 years. So far, He's God and I'm not.

kevin w

[PLD 14]

Kevin,

Excellent post and quite well spoken. I'm actually quite envious of your faith. Having been born with the gift of intelligence and the curse of curiosity, I find it quite rare that I understand a subject to my own satisfaction. As such, faith without question is probably one of my weakest personality traits.

Perhaps the only thing I can take you to task on is Benny Hinn. Making rocks sing and praise - Impressive. Creating the universe - Awesome. Use Benny Hinn for good? Sorry, I just don't see it... ;)

Philip

[racechaser 64]

Kevin,

Perhaps the only thing I can take you to task on is Benny Hinn. Making rocks sing and praise - Impressive. Creating the universe - Awesome. Use Benny Hinn for good? Sorry, I just don't see it... ;)

Philip

The people that talked of healings never said Benny Hinn. My church goes all over the world on missions trips. And the people that wrote earlier are right, the greatest miracles happen where people have the least in life.

And Jesus specifically said (paraphrased) "if you don't let them praise and worship me the rocks will cry out praises for me.(end) Now if Jesus can make a rock, why can't he make one sing?

Phillip I can understand not having faith. Even as an a child I would think occasionally, What if there really is no God? Am I just trying to feel good about death?

Well, as an adult I've lived my life with God as a "not so important" priority in the first 10 years of my adult life. And then the last 10, God is all I want and need. In that relationship I've been healed, He has healed my children through my prayers instantly (HIS POWER NOT MINE). He has continually taken away my shortcomings that I never could shed on my own. My temper and hate were removed in the blink of an eye because I asked him to. Now I'm talking about pure evil HATE i had toward my wife. I'm not talking about " well she really makes me angry sometimes", I'm talking the Most hateful, unforgiving heart you can imagine.

I could literally watch Christ raise someone from the dead and I would still tell everyone my "instant" transformation was the greater miracle. There was no ill feelings toward my wife after that instant. We were literally 2 days away from our divorce being final. My wife was literally dumbfounded by my change and me begging to not get divorced. It was my idea after all.

From that point on, Undescribable blessings and workings have gone on in my life.

Now let me explain why I understand your lack of faith Phillip..........

Let's pretend I sit at home this weekend and build a kite. When I'm done I go to a field and launch my kite. Now I brought a super long string to go way high because I'm really comitted to flying this high. So I launch my kite and the wind is just right, the kite goes way into the clouds. It is so high it can't even be seen anymore.

Now here you come walking by and say, "Hey Scott. What in the world are you doing?"

And I say, "flying a kite".

And you say, "Where is it?"

I say "Up there, you just can't see it anymore"

You say, "How do you know there was ever a kite at the end of the string?"

I say, "Because I saw it built, and I saw it launch, I even watched it before it got too high."

You say, "O.K. but how do know it is still up there?"

And I say, " Because I can feel the string!!!"

You see Phillip, you haven't seen what some of us have seen. All you can see is somebody blindly holding a string swearing there is a kite up there.

I've experienced it, that's why I'll blindly have faith in it all. If Jesus said, I believe it.

Scott

[Mike Williamson 198]

I could literally watch Christ raise someone from the dead and I would still tell everyone my "instant" transformation was the greater miracle.

Amen to that. The saving of a soul is the greatest miracle of all.

[HotShot 34]

Benny Hinn=false teacher

[Mike Williamson 198]

Benny Hinn=false teacher

True, but that doesn't mean God can't use him. God can use anyone, or anything, He chooses, and it is not contingent upon the tool being perfect.

[HotShot 34]

you got that right Mike...if that were the case, I'd be out :D

Just wanted to make sure that it was clear about Benny Hinn that's all....I didn't read the whole thread from where I left off last time..sorry. God can and does use everything to his disposal, you are exactly right.

[YVPW 20]

Mike,

I couldn't have said what you typed and different, that's truly how I feel. You are right on with the missionaries and 3rd world country's and faith in doctors instead of God. Sounds like we have some Pentecostal's on this board, lol. I believe in the Power of God. We never said anything about Benny Hinn, in fact I don't watch any TV preachers. I know God uses them, but there's things that don't line up for me. God uses Benny Hinn tremendously, I've been to one of his miracle crusades, and he's prayed over me. The presence of the Lord is so strong at times in those crusades that you can barely stand. When he prayed over the group of us(and didn't touch us either) the power of God hit us like an electric fence. But you see the Presence of the Lord in those services and healings has nothing to do with Benny Hinn. In fact he very rarely ever prays for anyone to be healed, they come on the platform already healed. Now I know some may not be healed, while others could lose there healing by doubting later. But some are truly healed. The people that I was referring to you've never heard of before, there not known by the secular world. Fox and CNN did find out about the one place in Mexico, in the jungles down there about a lot of miracles, and resurrections. They wanted to go down there but there was no way they wanted the work of God tainted by newsreporters, and false accusations and that mess. Because it doesn't matter if Jesus Christ himself walked the streets and healed the sick and raised the dead today people still wouldn't believe, so what makes you think people will believe when they see it on the news about this going on. The world doesn't know anything about the Spirit. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever!!

[Paul B. 523]

Two excellent posts from Kevin and Scott!

Here is something I ran accross I thought to be interesting:

Evolution: A Disproven Hypothesis by: David S. MacMillan III

I know that the title is just a little bit strong. But it should be! Macroevolution is being taught in our schools as fact, when it really has very little scientific basis.

In Charles Darwin's day, the mainstream scientific belief regarding the origin of life was a caricature of Genesis: God supposedly created all wildlife just as we see it today. Of course, nowhere in the Bible is such an idea stated. God created many distinct kinds, and these kinds reproduced and exhibited natural variation. For example, we got all the dogs we see today from one distinct dog-kind similar to a wolf. But dogs always bred dogs.

When Darwin signed on to The Beagle as the ship's naturalist, he sailed to the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific. In this island setting, the wildlife was very specialized and very open to observation. Darwin's grandfather had already publicized the idea that the Genesis account was totally false, and that all life on this planet was descended from the same primitive creature (universal common descent).

This young naturalist noted that there were many different kinds of birds on a particular island. One type of bird he was especially interested in were the finches. It is interesting to note that he didn't learn that these birds were finches until after he arrived back in civilization.

These finches were many and variegated. Some had big beaks, some had small beaks, some had medium beaks, some had long beaks, and some had short beaks . . . you get the point. Darwin theorized that all these finches came from the same basic kind of finch, but natural variation during reproduction changed them slightly. The offspring that had the best chance to live then were given a better chance of passing on their genes; these genes were thereby 'selected'. He called this process "Natural Selection".

Natural Selection is a perfectly viable process. Through this mechanism, we get dark skin and light skin, poodles and pyrenees, etc. all through natural genetic variation from a few distinct kinds thousands of years ago.

However, Darwin began to extrapolate on the data. Extrapolation, or extending of data, is fine if you have a lot of information and just a little that you don't know. But all Darwin knew was that over time, finches' beaks became more specialized. Perhaps, he decided, this same kind of change happens over millions of years, turning bugs into men.

When Darwin returned to civilization, he wrote The Origin of Species. This book detailed his new hypothesis; all the animals we see today descended from a common ancestor through extra-extended natural selection. He also wrote The Descent of Man, where he explained his theories on how man evolved from monkeys.

However, the budding idea of evolution would soon be dealt a stunning blow. At the time, simple cells were thought to be just that: simple. Research soon indicated that all life was dependent upon DNA, the four-letter amino acid language that dictated everything about an organism.

Research showed something else also. The variation Darwin saw in the finches was only the highlighting of certain parts of the genetic DNA code. This was microevolution within a species, but Darwin's hypothesis required macroevolution: drastic changes to the DNA code itself rather than the masking of unnecessary parts.

Until now, atheists had a handy way of denying God: "It all happened through evolution!" But now, evolution was heading downhill. Clinging to their ideology like religionists, the atheistic crowd tried to find some way to make the evidence fit their ideas.

Mutations! That's right, mutations! Scientists knew that random mistakes occasionally changed the DNA in the genome. They called these mistakes mutations. Perhaps, the atheists theorized, lucky mutations were the cause of genetic change and macroevolution! Any bad mutations would be filtered out by natural selection, and the lucky mutations they needed would be passed on to the next generation to be built upon by more mutations.

Of course, all this is speculation. We haven't ever seen a mutation that not only made its owner more likely to survive but also added to the genome and would eventually lead to a more advanced species.

This is the current theory held by the majority of scientists worldwide.

But could mutations ever do the trick?

The Descent of Man. Our DNA is a little less than 98% the same as the DNA of chimpanzees. Of course, this doesn't mean we are closely related to chimps or anything. We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but we aren't banana from the waist up or from the waist down.

That 2% of DNA holds an enormous amount of information that dictates many different characteristics. Most of these characteristics are critical to the life of the organism; for example our blood pressure is different from chimpanzees so all the pressure-sensitive cells must be changed to cope with the different conditions.

DNA is composed of four amino acid letters: A, C, G, and T. These letters are combined in pairs to create the language; the base pairs AT, CG, GC, and TA. For only 100 DNA base pairs, there are 10 to the 60th possible combinations:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations!!!

This is only 100 base pairs. The smallest pieces of DNA that can define a physical function are genes, the smallest of which composed of 1,000 base pairs. The number of combinations for such a thing would be unimaginable! But let's consider 100 base pairs. Any imperfect combination would either kill the mutating organism or would be automatically filtered out by the individual cell's copying mechanism.

So, in order to define 1/10th of a gene, we have 1 in 10 to the 60th chances. Mathematics experts tell us that the threshold of impossibility is 1 in 10 to the 50th, meaning that 10 to the 60th is 10,000,000,000 times more than impossible!

Evolutionists, of course, always have a way to defend their ideology. They propose that nature can cope with these overwhelming odds because it has extremely large periods of time.

But even if we have 10 to the 60th chances, it isn't as if this guarantees victory. Each chance the mutating organism has is just 1 in 10 to the 60th! This puts evolution right back where it started.

Science tells us that these odds are astronomically greater than what the human mind is able to grasp.

Scientific ideas progress from speculation to hypothesis to theory and finally to fact. In order to be called a theory, the idea must have substantial, tangible evidence that backs it up; in the case of evolution intermediate forms would be required.

Darwinian Evolution is nothing but a disproven hypothesis.

[PLD 14]

Once again, you have provided a detailed, fact filled, argument against evolution.

Now provide a detailed, fact filled argument for creation.

Once again, you have nicely quoted volumes of someone else's thoughts on the issue.

Now offer volumes of your own thoughts on the issue.

In fact, I bet you can not write an original dialog in your own words that supports creation. If you disagree, prove me wrong by doing it and meeting the following criteria.

1) The words will be exclusively your own. Your ideas may be based on the writings of others, but your writing must contain significantly original thought as to be easliy distinguished from being work of others. i.e. no regurgitation.

2) None of the ideas presented therein, or the supporting evidence thereto, will be based on the failings or gaps in evolutionary theory or science in general. i.e. disproof is not proof.

3) The post will be at least 1100 words long. i.e. the length of your last book excerpt.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Once again, you have provided a detailed, fact filled, argument against evolution.

Now provide a detailed, fact filled argument for creation.

Once again, you have nicely quoted volumes of someone else's thoughts on the issue.

Now offer volumes of your own thoughts on the issue.

In fact, I bet you can not write an original dialog in your own words that supports creation. If you disagree, prove me wrong by doing it and meeting the following criteria.

1) The words will be exclusively your own. Your ideas may be based on the writings of others, but your writing must contain significantly original thought as to be easliy distinguished from being work of others. i.e. no regurgitation.

2) None of the ideas presented therein, or the supporting evidence thereto, will be based on the failings or gaps in evolutionary theory or science in general. i.e. disproof is not proof.

3) The post will be at least 1100 words long. i.e. the length of your last book excerpt.

Does it really matter who wrote what??? Is this thread about proving Paul can think for himself and write a paper on creation, or is it about creation/evolution?

[PLD 14]

You see Phillip, you haven't seen what some of us have seen. All you can see is somebody blindly holding a string swearing there is a kite up there.

I've experienced it, that's why I'll blindly have faith in it all. If Jesus said, I believe it.

An excellent post. Well written, and certainly thought provoking.

[Mike Sullivan 15]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.:lol: