Can anyone who believes in Creation, explain?

Question

what is found in biology? (Without reverting to scripture or mentioning a prophet) The more elaboration, the better.
Also, are there any christian biologists? If so, who?

loveisgreat, read it. Minimal content. Where is their workings out!? They just dogmatically call evolution wrong without elaborating.

Hmm, defamatory remarks show distinct lack of argument on your side.

lol friendshipband, so, you have no input regarding biology then? Knowledge is power, my friend.

Excellent answer, Billy!! :)

lol sorry, fs-I struggled through your rant, but it was not very convincing. If I had the inclination, I could counter a lot(not all)of what you state.(I was not surprised at your profession)

Hutsong, could you elaborate on this discrepancy please? - "in the last 100 years, [ALL BUT FOUR] of these organs have been found to have important functions for the body. It appears that [EVERY PART] of the human body has functionality. This implies masterful design, not chance evolutionary processes".

Well THANK YOU all those who so far chose to answer with thought.(and to those that may still!) I have lots to research and learn more about now!

Yeah...didn't think you could explain that one, Hutsong. It's called a 'Contradiction.'
(read above)Bet you got your info off a 'christian' site, no?

Answer 1

Well, I'm a Christian biologist, and I know many others who are. I accept that evolution occured, but I do think it was necessary for God to direct it. There are too many irreducibly complex systems at the cellular level, and too many astronomically unlikely coincidences that would have had to take place, if natural selection were completely responsible for the phenomenon. Even a time span of billions of years is just not enough to account for it, statistically speaking. That's my professional opinion, and I'm far from the only one who thinks so.

Answer 2

Biology is merely the study of life. I suppose there are many Christian or otherwise religious biologists. The question arises between the supporters of creation and evolution. Creation and evolution are not exactly mutually exclusive. Logically, something had to start the ball rolling, the "uncaused first cause." This would correspond to the the universe just before the "Big Bang." To set up something like that, creation of something from nothing, would require an entity with power not limited by the same physical laws the rest of us have to deal with. Such an entity would be certainly Godlike.

Answer 3

Biology is simply the way that we as people have explained the physical how's and why's of the processes life. I don't refute all the studies: yes we are made up of millions and billions of tiny microscopic organisms, and yes there is symbiosis, and yes there is a physical explanation of the hows of physical life working. There are so many details of what is found in science period. But in all of the knowledge of science and studies there is a rather large void. Yes, science explains the hows and the whys of the processes, but it completely leaves out the reasons. Who cares that molecules can come together and make something else, because even if we did evolve from monkeys (which we didn't), we still ended up asking why.

Answer 4

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

Answer 5

Dear 'LoveIsGreat': please check the following link in reply to your argument
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

Simply put, it says that the moon is moving away from the earth faster than it was in the past. so the Earth-Moon system is in fact much older than the some would like us to believe.

To answer the Question posed, I'd like to share Saint Augustin's dilemma about the Holy Trinity: You see St. Augustine was walking up the beach and finds this child trying to fill, SPOON by SPOON, a small ditch in the sand with water from the sea. He understands then, that the mystery of the Triune God is to big to be comprehended by his human understanding.

In as much as i remain convinced of the fact that every book of the Bible is Inspired by God - it is still limited by the understanding of the human mind that complied it.

And while the Bible talks about creation - one must remember that what the writer(s) intended to convey (And i believe God wanted us to know) was that God was Involved in our creation - we were not flukes

So the Bible isn't talking about creation to a Class of Final Year Med Students but to ordinary men and women. The Bible strives to show us that our God loves us and not how He made us (anyways we might never be able to understand that).

And please don't look for Biology or Taxonomy lessons in a Love Story - you won't find it!

Answer 6

In the light of YOUR following comment what is the point of your question - It certainly not an honest inquiry is it?

No, because Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by an enormous quantity and variety of evidence. This evidence includes anatomical, embryological and biochemical homologies, the hierarchical relationships of living organisms, the fossil record and biogeographical evidence. The evidence is, at best, not supportive of and generally inconsistent with the idea of independent creation of life forms. Evolution is the unifying principle of the life sciences - "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

Answer 7

Well there are some stuff that could not have evolved with out outside influance.

There was a cuple such cases found, I think they counted man as one of them.... only one I know for sure is some of the creatuers that mix chemicals in there bodies for repelent perposes like the bombadear bettle.

Answer 8

Scientifically, the idea is that when observing the intracacies of the biological world, the only logical conclusion is that some designer was involved. Think about this, when you breathe in air, your lungs absorb oxygen and expell carbon dioxide. these oxygen molecules are instantly attached to red blood cells that deliver them to all parts of your body that need them to function. Your heart is a muscle pumping this blood through the body, and is itself fueled by the oxygen that you are breathing. Your heart and lungs are functioning because millions of interlaces neurons are running through your body communicating signals from you brain that you are not even consciously aware of. Your brain also is working on the supply of blood and oxygen moving through your body. These are just some of the large systems. Each cell contains microscopic parts that are constantly in motion that work together copying DNA, creating and using fuel, and sending messages chemically and electrically through your body.
Assuming we could make the leap from primordial ooze to basic amino acids, we would still be nothing close to the DNA we have today. To suggest that the literally billions of mutations it would take to change us from amino acids to human beings actually occured is mathematically obsurd. No respectable scientist could ever believe those numbers when asked point blank. Now lets assume, that these mathematical impossibilities did happen. If all these mutations occurred, at the very least millions of them would have to occur perfectly and simultaneously. Remember the description of the large body systems? your brain won't fire nuerons to tell you to breathe without having oxygen to run on. as much as these large systems are interlaced, the atomic and cellular levels are just as intricate and interlaced. The idea that these mathematically impossible mutations all happened at the same time simply multiplies the absurdity exponentially.
To believe that any non complex organism can mutate over millions of years into a complex organism is ludacris when you actually walk through the scenario.
If you are walking through the woods and you see a piece of wood carved into a bird, you wouldn't ever think to yourself that something that obviously carefully planned and designed just mutated and fell off of a tree branch. You would clearly thnik to yourself, someone carved this and left it here. As simple as that block of wood is, its intricacy as well as artistry can only logically lead to the concept of a designer. Now think of how complex a single cell of your skin is when you magnify it under a microscopic lens. This intricacy and sustained functionality cannot logically lead us to believe that anything other than a careful designer could set all of the various elements of our universe in place to create such an incredible machine/ artwork.

This is why creation has to be the only reasonable option circulating in scientific theories of origin. It is the only one that can make logical and mathematical sense. The irony is that it predates the other, unacceptable theories that are supposedly based on sound science.

Micro evolution happens all the time and is observable around us in all species, but marco evolution as a theory of universal origins requires far to much suspension of reason to be believable.

That fossil records support an old earth should not be a problem for religious creationists who believe that God created the world. Most religious accounts have God creating mature animals and plants, as well as humans. If the elements within the world were created "old" why wouldn't this God create an "old" ecosystem that would sustain itself.

As far as supposed fossils that are "links" between primates and humans, one need only look around the world today to see the variance in the sizes, shapes, and appearances of modenr human beings. This is a result of micro evolution that occurs over time with isolation. Yet we are all genetiaclly one species. There is only one human race, what we define as variant races are simply social constructs based on stigmatization of certain groups that have been geographically seperated long enough to develop specific sets of characteristics. This does not make anyone less human, it just testifies that not only are we intricate machines, but we are also beautiful art that is incredibly diverse within the genetic boundaries of a single species.

Answer 9

What the greatest minds have yet to realize is; the viewable universe is but a minute portion of our creators MIND. Astrophysics is the reflection of the synapses in action. Each new thought is another complete universe, which are infinite in number. You, who are reading are a complete universe unto yourself. You create as you think and conclude. Monitoring what you think will produce your personal universe.

Answer 10

Everything we are made up of in biology points to a God. We are so complex that if things in our body were not made how they are we would be dead.

And think about this. If you bring up Creation everyone says, "Then who made God?" Think about it. If God made the universe than He made the laws of our universe as well as our logic. One law including time. So if God is above time then he doesn't have to have a beginning or a end.