What do you believe in?

Question

Do you believe in evolution or creation? and why? Give reasons, multiple evidences for your belief, and sources.

I just wanted to see how ignorant some people are for believing or "accepting" evolution. I believe in Creationism, and those who think evolution is true and provable is just plain retarded. You better start doing some research to see the truth. Instead of stating evolution to be true, step into logic and rely on something better than evolution. It takes a leap of faith to accept evolution, and only a inch of faith for creationism. No one will be able to change my mind, because I have seen the truth. All I'm asking is which do you believe in and why do you believe in it? But give me PROOF for your side, not just saying there is proof, but by providing it. Not by telling me to research it, but by you providing it. Thanks.

Answer 1

Ok cool... will you really read it though? I will present a few arguments:

1.

(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)

Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.
Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.
2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.
3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.

The power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.
In this section, I will examine these three basic points in general outlines:


The First Insurmountable Step:
(The Origin of Life)

The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.

"LIFE COMES FROM LIFE"

On the other hand, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."30
For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.


The French biologist Louis Pasteur
The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin

The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.

(Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century)

The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.31
Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.32
After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.33
All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?34
One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts; The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive earth was totally unsuited to life.

All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposely designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.

(THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF LIFE)

The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.
The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.
The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.35
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.


(IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION)

The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…
Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.36


(Lamarck's Impact)

So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.


(The French biologist Lamarck)

Lamarck thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example to this line of reasoning, he suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of grass. With the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all. As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century.

Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.37
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.

The direct effect of random mutations is harmful. Above is a mutated calf which was born with two heads.


(NEO-DARWINISM AND MUTATIONS)

In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.38
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.


(THE FOSSIL RECORD: NO SIGN OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS)

The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed.... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39

The larger picture belongs to a 100-million-year-old Nautilus fossil. On the left is a Nautilus living in our day. When we compare the fossil with today's Nautilus (on the right is the cross section of the creature's shell), we see that they both have the same identical characteristics.


(Darwin's Hopes Shattered)

However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.40
This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.41
Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but creation.


(THE TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION)

The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:


1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.42
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."43
By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.44
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.45
This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.46
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"—that is, depending on concrete data—fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"—concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense—and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.47
The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.

Imaginary representations of 'primitive' human beings are frequently employed in stories carried by pro-evolution newspapers and magazines. The only source for these stories, based on these imaginary representations, are the imaginations of their authors. Yet evolution has suffered such a defeat in the face of the scientific facts that fewer reports concerning evolution now appear in scientific magazines.


(TECHNOLOGY IN THE EYE AND THE EAR)

Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?
Compared to cameras and sound recording machines, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior designs to these products of high technology.
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.
The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.
As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.
So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.


(To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?)

Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?
The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.
For this consciousness is the spirit created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.
Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.

Motion
Tought
Touch
Talking
Vision
Tasting
Hearing
Smelling
We live our entire life within our brain. The people that we see, the flowers we smell, the music we listen to, the fruits we taste, the wetness we feel on our hand… All of these form in our brains. In reality, neither colors, nor sounds, nor images exist in our brain. The only things that exist in the brain are electric signals. This means that we live in a world formed by the electric signals in our brain. This is not an opinion or a hypothesis, but the scientific explanation of how we perceive the world.


(A Materialist Faith)

The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.
However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?
The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.
Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist":
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.48
These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.

2.

Darwin’s finches
Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation
by Carl Wieland

Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural selection is responsible for the differences.

Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. It would not need to be an ‘evolutionary’ change at all, in the sense of giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man transformation. No new genetic information would have been introduced. If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.

Say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a ‘woodpecker finch’ could arise.

The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information—and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.

Creationists have long proposed such ‘splitting under selection’ from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and other wild dogs from one pair on the Ark. The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take a much longer time than Scripture allows. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders are deliberately acting on each generation. The usual ‘guesstimate’ of how long it took for Darwin’s finches to radiate from their parent population ranges from one million to five million years.

However, Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action.1 For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.

While that is not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.

Notice that (although the article fails to mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation, but are based upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real, uphill (macro) evolution — though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be taught it as ‘evolution in action’.

Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood, selection pressure would have been much more intense—with rapid migration into new, empty niches, residual catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of differing food species.

Reference
P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991.

Source(s):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...

3.
"Biblical Creationism: Fact or Myth?
Scientific Evidences for Skeptics to Ponder"

Do 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.

In 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.

I 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!

Think 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.

I 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!

Second, 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.

Third, 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!

Fourth, 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)

Fifth, 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.

Sixth, 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 insignificant reflection." (2)

Last, the first Cause must be a Person. There is design in the universe. For it is balanced by the four fundamental nuclear forces. If altered by the slightest one millionth of a degree, all the stars would cease to exist. The Person would have to be a creator with desires, because the creator did not need the creation in order to exist. Rather, the universe was created out of pleasure! It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Bible is the best explanation.

THE OTHER SOLUTIONS...

There are only three possible theories as to the reason the universe is eternal. Some religions teach that the cause and effect are equal; "God and the universe are one". This contradicts what I stated earlier that for every cause there must be an effect. "Duality" is not logical! Astrophysicist Steven Hawking stated, "People go overboard on eastern mysticism simply because it is something different that they haven't met before. But as a natural description of reality; it fails abysmally to produce results." (3)

The Steady State Cosmology Theory is the scientific equal to eastern religious thinking. The scientific version had three originators: Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle. It suggests that a "creation field" be added to Einstein's general relativity equations to demonstrate that matter was being created at a rate precisely counterbalanced by the universe's expansion; so that the average density of the universe remains constant.

Einstein initially agreed with this explanation and added his "cosmological constant" in order to alter his computations and preserve the idea of a universe without a beginning. However in 1931, Einstein was forced to admit his "mistake" due to the observations of Edwin Hubble. (4)

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that all distant galaxies are retreating from us at a speed that is directly proportional to their distances from us. This means that if a galaxy is twice as far from the Milky Way, it is moving twice as fast from us. This discovery is now known as "Hubble's Law". Robert Jastrow; founder of NASA's Goddard Institute and is current director of Mount Wilson Observatory; where Hubble made his discoveries stated, "The Hubble Law is one of the greatest discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis." (5) Keep in mind; Jastrow is a self proclaimed agnostic. (6) Today, the Hubble Telescope has discovered that the universe's expansion is now decelerating from an initial surge. The universe is exploding rather than expanding! This theory was soon discarded.

The second theory was called "Plasma Cosmology". It suggested that most of the universe is composed of electrically conducting gasses. Hannes Alfv'en, the originator, suggested that plasma indirectly creates a repelling effect between galaxy superstructures, causing the expansion of the universe. Unlike the Big Bang Theory that suggests an explosion started at a single point; Alfv'en believed it was a series of "mini-bangs". He suggested that the universe expands and contracts to one percent of it's present size. Yet, for some unknown reason, the plasma blows the universe apart again, thus maintaining eternal equilibrium. (7)

The "Quasi-Steady State Cosmology" theory is a spin-off of Plasma Cosmology. Originated in 1993 by Fred Hoyle, Burbridge, and Narlikar. The theory suggests that the "creation field" (from which matter is born) only exists in certain areas of high mass density. The fields alternately increase and decrease during the history of the universe. This results in slow and fast expansion. They claim that the universe is one trillion years old and that we are living in the middle of a short term slowdown in it's expansion rate. This gives the appearance of an equilibrium between collapse and accelerated expansion that would be too rapid for galaxies to form.

Both of these theories do not account for the composition of the spectrographic studies or for how the universe came out of nothing. These theories also haven't been able to explain the smooth background radiation now observed coming from every point in the sky. (More on this later.)

The last theory is much like the previous one and the refutation of them both is to be equally regarded. The "Cyclic Cosmological Theory" is the belief that the density of the universe will expand to the point of a critical anti-matter amount and then reverse itself into a big squeeze. At this point, it will "re-bang" itself into a new universe again.

One can't take either of these views seriously; Einstein's theory of relativity states that once matter crunches itself into a ball, (like a black hole) nothing, not even light can escape. This is due to the magnetic pull. It takes a projectile to reach the speed of 25,000 miles per hour to leave the earth's gravity. For a body to be massive enough; like a star, it collapses under it's own gravity. Incidentally black holes exist. An example of that would be Cygnus X-1; it turned out to be a collapsed super giant whirling around an invisible object every five days.

If matter can not re-bang itself from a black hole, it can not do it if the universe was a black hole either! "Even if someday such a theory could develop, it won't be in regular cycles of expansions and contractions; rather it will be even greater and more chaotic ones!" (8) And this still does not explain how something could come out of nothing. George Smoot; team leader of the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite System of NASA, stated that all these theories will die out when the originators die out. Science simply doesn't support them any longer. (9)

It is perfectly alright for someone to state his metaphysical opinions about what caused or didn't cause the universe, but it is wrong to state that science provided the information. Astrophysicist Barry Parker states "We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there is no creation, and that the universe has always been there. But this is more difficult to accept than creation! (10) All the other options point to a biblical God and natural science ends where the Bible begins!". (11)

The Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism but harmonizes with the Bible. It is the only theory that observational evidence does support. It wasn't till recently that anyone had reason to believe that there was a biblical beginning.

In 1933, George Lemaitre' became the father of the Big Bang theory. Back in 1927, Lemaitre' predicted that a primeval atom, otherwise known as a singularity, might still be detected in a form of remnant radiation. Other Big Bang theorists such as George Gamov, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman; have stated that the heat radiating from the explosion might still exist. Unlike a volcano or a microwave oven; in which heat can escape into the atmosphere, there is nowhere outside of the universe where heat can escape.

In 1965, two astrophysicists; Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at AT&T Bell Laboratories in New Jersey found the radiation while attempting to refine one of the world's most sensitive radio receiving devices to measure a true temperature of absolute zero. It was their hypothesis that absolute zero could be determined by directing the radio antenna towards the sky and measuring the temperature within space. No matter where they pointed the receiver, the level of radiation remained at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. They found this to be very frustrating because no matter what day or night, nor what season it was, the temperature of the radiation remained unchanged. In 1978, Arno and Robert, each, received the Nobel Peace Prize for discovering this amazing fact! This later became known as Cosmic (which means the entire universe) Microwave (which means radio waves measuring less than one meter) Background Radiation (which means radiation measured everywhere).

In 1990, NASA spent $200 million dollars producing the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite. It gave a cosmologist a chance to make more accurate measurements of the radiation. The Microwaves matched perfectly the characteristics that the universe was once a great fireball that detonated all over the vast empty regions of what is now our universe. It is now a scientific fact that no other theory other than the creation event could have created the universe! The results were 99.97% accurate! (12) Astrophysicists John Barrow and Joseph Silk stated that there are no known sources that can account for the source of this radiation other than the cosmic background at a constant observed level. (13)

In 1979, Dr. Alan Guth determined that the size of the universe doubles and at given intervals as the result of the initial speeds of the universe from the time that the universe began; have slowed down due to the decrease of heat in subatomic particles. (14) At the time of the explosion the temperature was too hot for particles to form and in less than a trillionth of a second later, the temperature cooled below one hundred thousand degrees Kelvin to form quarks and electrons. As the temperatures continued to fall, the quarks clumped together to form protons and neutrons, producing hydrogen our first element. At the time of the explosion, the entire universe consisted of a region a trillionth of the size of a proton. It expanded in velocity of about one fourth the speed of light. Any uneven radiation could have been smoothed out by the rapid force of expansion! The evidence is found in COBE satellite data. (15) The universe could have come from nothing, but that does not explain where the thermonuclear reactions came from, or the fact that this explosion was not random, but rather a finely tuned explosion that produced the elements necessary to create intelligent life! George Smoot wrote; "The Beginning is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians." (16) Robert Jastrow wrote; "The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man, commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (17)

The evidence of design by a creator is discovered more clearly as we understand how the universe works. Scientists understand how the universe's laws are set within extremely narrow and critical parameters. Physicist Freeman Dyson stated; "The more I examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." (18)

Where did all the natural laws of design come from? It is superstitious to believe the laws of nature govern themselves and the universe without cause! I have a supernatural explanation, do you have a natural one?

The observational evidence listed in the next few pages will prove that the laws of astrophysics were designed by a highly intelligent creator; God. First, the carbon atom should not exist or be exceedingly rare. In order for the carbon atom to form, it needs to be at a precise level of resonance. Resonance is the nuclear behavior of excitement within the nucleus of an atom. The electron rotates around its own axis at a fixed rate and cannot be stopped or changed except by destroying the electron. If the speed of the electron is increased, it so drastically alters its properties that it results in a completely different particle. Nuclei is normally configured for stability and minimum energy. It can be excited as the result of colliding with other nuclei. When this happens, the proton moves into a higher orbit. A helium nuclei will collide with another to form beryllium. Then another helium nuclei collides with the short lived beryllium to form carbon. If the resonance was just a bit lower, carbon could not form. If the resonance was just a bit higher the energy level would destroy the carbon atom instantly. (19) When Hoyle calculated the odds that such resonances could occur by chance, he stated that his faith in agnosticism was greatly shaken. (20) Princeton's physicist Freeman Dyson stated that lucky accidents such as chains of carbon atoms, still could not form water, organic molecules, and the hydrogen to bridge between the molecules. (21) Even Carl Sagan admits that the laws of nature can not occur at random; "It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with the galaxies, stars, planets, life and intelligence." (22)

Second, if the ratio between the proton (which is 1836 times heavier than the electron), and the electron slightly different; there would be no chemistry, or life, or any physicists to wonder about it all! Stephen Hawking says; "The remarkable fact is that the values of their numbers seems to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (23)

Third, if the four fundamental nuclear forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism, weak interactions, and strong nuclear forces) had been a slightly different strength; life would not be possible. Within the nucleus of an atom, there are two opposing forces, attraction and repulsion. On one hand, there are electrical repulsions which would tear the nucleus apart. On the other hand, there are forces of attraction which bind the nuclear particles to each other. When an extra neutron is added to the nucleus, the nucleus breaks up, forming two smaller nuclei, which fly apart, releasing a vast amount of energy. This is what occurs in nuclear fission. The sun would cease to burn or explode. (24,25)

Fourth, the natural processes alone can not explain the specified complexities of the encoded information in DNA. Hoyle, Gold, Orgel, and Arrhenius calculated the odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life that might form in one place at ten to the forty thousandth power. (That's 1 with 40,000 zero's after it) Since there are only ten to the eightieth atoms in the entire universe; this suggestion was an outrageously small probability!

Fifth, the odds that the relative strengths that two forces could balance each other (gravity: which holds a star together and electromagnetic force: which allows a star to radiate energy) in every star were altered by a mere ten to the fortieth power, we'd have a world in which all stars were either red dwarfs or blue super giants; making it impossible for planets to support human life. (26)

Sixth, we have no modern theory why, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, our universe got into such an orderly state. The odds are ten to the tenth power times ten to the ten to the thirtieth power! (27)

Seventh, astrophysicist Richard Morris stated; "If our universe had been expanding at a rate that was slower than one part per million, then the expansion would have stopped when the universe was only thirty thousand years old, and when the temperature was still ten thousand degrees." (28) If expanding at a slightly faster rate, the universe would be devoid of stars and galaxies, and hence, the building blocks of which life is made. (29)

Eighth, there is a slight excess of matter over anti-matter. In 1932, Carl Anderson discovered anti-matter in a lab at Caltech. Emilio Segri and Owen Chamberlain generated their own anti-matter and demonstrated that when energy is converted into matter, anti-matter is equally created. Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg explained how rare this small excess of matter must have been; "If there had not been a small excess of electrons over anti-electrons, and quarks over anti-quarks, then ordinary particles like electrons and quarks would be virtually absent in the universe today. It is this early excess; estimated at one part per ten billion, that survived to form light atomic nuclei three minutes after the explosion, and after a million years, formed atoms which later was cooked into heavier elements found in stars, which ultimately provided the material of which life would arise." (30)

Ninth, the centrifugal force perfectly balances the gravitational forces of the moon's orbit around the earth. If the earth's gravity had been too weak, the moon would leave the earth's gravitational pull. If the gravity was too great, the moon would have crashed into the earth! This is also true of the earth's rotation around the sun and that of all the planets in our solar system, as well as all the galaxies to the farthest ends of our universe!

(These are only nine of twenty five total. For more information, see reference #6 in bibliography)

Our universe was born as the result of natural laws that do not seem to change. For those who think science needs more time to evaluate this situation, is not 15 to 20 billion light years enough time? (The universe is approximately thirty billion light years across. With the doubling effect of expansion at given time intervals, it is estimated that the age of the universe is approximately 15 billion years.)

Some people believe Hollywood's suggestion that multiple universes exist and converge upon one another like branches of a tree. Given the facts that we know to be true, if other universes do exist, (in finite numbers) there is a high probability they would not support life. Physicist/mathematician Paul Davies stated; "One may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation." (32)

Some people actually believe that life must have been sent here on a spaceship from a dying civilization and that perhaps the astronaut's bacteria survived the journey. Others have suggested that genetic material was sent to this perfect planet for some sort of lab experiment. Of course these excuses only begs the question: How did life begin in the first place? If natural laws can not explain how life began on this "ideal" planet, how can it be so at any location?

Some people believe in the ultimate game of chance; Quantum Mechanics. This is the belief that there is no reality until someone observes it. If this idea were true then looking through a telescope could alter events billions of years into the past! This suggestion gives it's enthusiast's a chance to speculate that through man's act of observation, he caused his own creation along with the conditions necessary for life!

Of course, this theory creates a which came first; the chicken or the egg problem that can go on forever! This idea still does not address the need for a first cause. Incidentally, physicists have never observed any effects in our visible world and very few scientists take seriously the notion that the universe, so perfectly designed, changed because someone looked at it! Perhaps the whole universe had no existence till it was observed? But who would be outside the universe to observe it? Does this not sound like the transcendent God? Soon as these folks realize that they are wrestling with the supernatural explanation that they have strived to avoid!

Some people believe that life must exist till the end of time, in a closed universe. In order for life to survive in that hot, dense time, when the universe will contract once again; our descendents must evolve to a very different and advanced civilization. Before the end of time, our super computer-like society will achieve the ability to process an infinite amount of information. At that point, which will be called the "Origin Point", we will assume the role of gods. We will process and infinite amount of thoughts, at infinite speed, our evolved supreme civilization will redefine time; ensuring an eternity for ourselves and for every living being that existed in the past. Our future descendents will view the human soul as a program that can be replicated. They will propose that this infinite intelligence will resurrect each of us, so that we might be appropriately rewarded or reformed. (33) People that are willing to consider such wild explanations can only demonstrate how impossible it is for them to avoid the evidence for design. We all must decide whether to credit the design of intelligence to God or to ourselves.

For some, the thought that humans might be the only form of intelligent life in the universe, strikes most with being extremely unscientific. Many scientists have suggested that the universe must be teeming with extraterrestrials by now, (34) in order to conform with the assumption about biological evolution. Robert Jastrow stated; "If life is common, we'll be hearing from those guys soon, because we are in a very conspicuous part of the universe right now. Our television and radio waves are spread all around us. It is reasonable to assume that advanced technological civilizations will be aware of radio physics. There is only one radio spectrum, and it's the same everywhere in the universe." (35,36) So why have we not picked up any signals yet? If there are so many civilizations, more advanced than ours, certainly they would want to explore and colonize other planets in the galaxy! Ours would be ideal! We have the right conditions for life. So where are they?

Some people ask that if the universe is so vast; why would God make the universe so huge? With all the billions of stars and galaxies like our own, why are we so special? Astrophysicists John Barrow and Joseph Silk states that no one could exist if the universe were any smaller. They point out that life's building blocks: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and silicon; were not formed until after the first generation of stars have slowly cooked the hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements which planets are made out of. (37) Given the fact that the universe has been stable throughout it's expansion, more time results in a larger universe. Further they stated; "Hence, we realize that for there to be time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be more than a billion years old and consequently, more than a billion light years in size. The universe would have to be just as large as it is to support even one lonely outpost of life." (38)

We have only three choices. Either we decide that the universe, or mankind, or God is running the universe. Those willing to choose an alternative other than God, defies logic. The other two choices have no explanation or theory on which they can stand. Please understand that all the quotes, except one are from scientists who are not bible believing Christians. This report has not been prejudiced by a Christian viewpoint. Those who have rejected the God of the Bible have to base their conclusions inspite of the evidence and not because of it!

Some people believe that God is one with the universe. This idea is not consistent with science because the universe had a beginning. Belief in blind chance requires considerable faith. Taken to it's logical end; it's so pathetic that it's almost funny! Logic dictates that we should devote our short lives to finding the means to know the one outside of time and space. Although the world is filled with suffering and violence; if people seek the answer, they would find out that God has done something about it all. There is good logic in trusting the one cosmic history that fits what we know of God.

Many state that if the Big Bang were true, then it is in direct conflict with the Bible's six day account in Genesis. Yet in Hebrew, "day" means "yom", which has been translated to mean a specific period of time and not to be confused with a solar day. (39) Christian tradition also agree's with this concept, as pointed out by the first century writers; Philo and Josephus. (40) Other writers include: Augustine (41), second century apologist and martyr; Irenaeus, third century apologist; Origen, fourth century bishop of Caesarea; Basil, thirteenth century; Thomas Aquinas. (42) In the twentieth century, this position was held by C.T. Scofield, A.H. Strong, and Gleason Archer.

There are also scripture references that gives a general sense of a time consuming process; including ages:

Psalm 104
Proverbs 8:22-31
Ecclesiastes 3:11a
Micah 6:3
Habakkuk 3:6

Genesis was not written specifically about when and how the universe was created, but who created it! Psalms 111:2 states "Great are the works of the Lord; they are studied by all who delight in them!"

It would be deceptive of God's character to create a universe that would appear to be billions of years old and yet be only six solar days. Starlight can only travel so fast. For the span of the universe to be thirty billion light years across; the universe must be pretty old! This suggestion does not necessarily mean that the biblical concept of Genesis would agree with Darwin's evolutionary dogmas either. However, science and the Bible agree that planets and other animals were created first and that man and mammals were created last.

God created the entire universe plus self-conscious beings like Himself. Having been given a freedom of choice, these persons eventually declared their independence from God and broke His laws; which were necessary for the good life that God planned for them. The situation became very unpleasant for God and so He had two choices. He could have exterminated them; the end, the plan failed. Or, out of His caring concern and love for them; provide a solution. He could not simply forgive anyone because He had to do something about all the injustice in the world. God pronounced a just sentence (Romans 8:1); but also provided a full pardon to all who would take it. He had to be mortal because God can not die and He had to be God because only a sinless person could pay for the sins of another. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then it is not unreasonable for God to be bound by death! Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that He should have the power and the purpose to rise from the dead! In fact; it would be unreasonable for God to be bound by death! (43)

If the infinite Creator wanted to communicate to all of us earthlings what He was like; how could He show us more clearly than becoming one of us? If He wanted to show us how serious the offense is, to break His moral law, how better than to forfeit His own life? And if He wanted to tell us how much He loves us, how could He do it more dramatic than dying for us?

Biblical faith is more than intellectual reasoning. It is the logical choice! Other religions have teachings about an historical person, but it is Christianity that's based on what a person did. Of all the religions, no other has left such lucid evidence of God's involvement with humanity. We can either appreciate God's way more deeply or we can stubbornly and foolishly decide to go our own way and see where the outcome will lead. Anyone wishing to make sure that he has taken the first step of faith, should confess his moral failings to God and then in his own words, thank God for sending His own Son Jesus to die for him! From that point on, trust Christ to lead and develop his worth in a way that would never had been known without Him.

Source(s):
Bibliography


1. John Romer; PBS television series; "Testament", Jan. 1991
2. Albert Einstein, "Ideas and Opinions - The World as I See It", (New York:
Bonanza Books, 1974), p. 40
3. Steven Hawking, "Quest for the Secret of the Universe" (New York: Harper
Collins, 1991), p. 120
4. Vibert Douglas, "Forty Minutes with Einstein" (Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, 1956) Vol. 50, p. 100
5. Robert Jastrow, "God and the Astronomers" 2nd Edition, (New York & London:
W.W. Norton & Co., 1992), p. 53
6. Robert Jastrow, interview with Fred Heeren, "Show Me God - What the Message
from Space is Telling Us about God" (Wheeling, Illinois: Searchlight
publications, 1995), p. 123
7. Eric Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened - The Startling Refutation of the
Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe" (New York: Random House,
1991), pp. 217-218
8. John Barrow and Joseph Smith, "The Left Hand of Creation - The Origin and
Evolution of the Expanding Universe" (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 71-72
9. Fred Heeren, pp. 89-90
10. Barry Parker, "Creation- The Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe"
(New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988), p.10
11. Isaiah 40:26, 28
12. Ron Cowen, "COBE: A Match Made in Heaven" (Science News, Vol. 143, #3,
January 16th, 1993
13. Barrow & Silk, p.17
14. Alan Guth; interview with Fred Heeren; June 7th, 1994; p.147
15. Andre Linde, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe" (Scientific American,
November 1994) p.55
16. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, "Wrinkles in Time" (New York: William
Morrow & Co., 1993) p. 189
17. Robert Jastrow; p.14
18. Freeman Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe" (New York: Harper & Row, 1979)
p.250
19. Robert Kirshner; chairman of Harvard's astronomy department; "The Earth's
Elements" (Scientific American, October 1994) p. 61
20. Fred Hoyle; cited by Owen Gingerich (Engineering & Science; November 1981) p.
392
21. Freeman Dyson, p.251
22. Carl Sagan, "Cosmos" (New York: Random House, 1980) p. 260
23. Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time- From the Big Bang to Black Holes"
(New York: Bantam Books, 1988) p. 125
24. Richard Morris, "The Fate of the Universe" (New York: Playboy Press, 1982)
p. 153
25. Steven Hawking; p. 125
26. Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983)
p. 188
27. Ibid., pp. 164,168,178-179
28. Richard Morris; p. 152
29. John Barrow & Joseph Silk; p. 206
30. Steven Weinberg, "Life in the Universe" (Scientific American, October 1994) p. 45
31. Hugh Ross, "The Creator and the Cosmos" (NavPress: Colorado Springs, Color-
ado, 1994) pp. 111-114
32. Paul Davies; p. 174
33. Fred Heeren; p. 218
34. Robert T. Rood & James S. Trefil, "Are We Alone? The Possibility of
Extraterrestrial Civilizations" (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons 1981) p. 247
35. Fred Heeren; (interview with Robert Jastrow, December 15th, 1994) p. 219
36. Ibid.
37. John D. Barrow & Joseph A. Silk; p. 205
38. Ibid.
39. Henry Morris, "Scientific Creationism" (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1991)
pp. 16-17
40. Hugh Ross, "The Fingerprint of God" Second Edition, (Orange, California:
Promise Publishing Co. 1989, 1991) pp. 16-17
41 and 42. Bernard Ramm, The Christian Voice of Science and Scripture" (London: The
Paternoster Press; 1965) p. 165
43. Excerpts from "Show Me God - What the Message from Space is Telling Us
about God" (Wheeling, Illinois: Searchlight publications, 2000)

Answer 2

I believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation with the most supporting evidence we have. Evolution doesn't speak to how life first arose it just explains what has happened since it did. The honest answer to the origin of life is, unless you are willing to take what an ancient text creation story says, we don't know yet. The positive thing about science is it is willing to look at evidence rather than fix reality at what ancient tribal man knew thousands of years ago. This has stood humanity in good stead from the most part. When science is proven wrong it also adapts which religion is unwillling to do. This continues to be a problem for some when the two contradict each other.

Lines of evidence for evolution:
Fossil record
Taxonomy/morphology
Distribution of Species
Molecular biology

Answer 3

I don't believe in creation because there is no real evidence that things got started that way.

I don't "believe" in evolution either --- although I accept that it is probably true because science has gathered quite a bit evidence for it.

Y!A is not the place for multiple evidences and a long list of sources. Some things you have to do yourself.

Answer 4

I believe in both.

Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact.

One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.

Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang (that was proposed by a Catholic priest) or evolution or both or neither.

On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas.

As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony.

With love in Christ.

Answer 5

Evolution.

Answer 6

Science and evolution. Though its not really a matter of believing. There is evidence and proof and thats what makes the most sense. There is no such thing as magic.

Answer 7

I believe in creationism, because if evolution were true, the sky would be blue, and there'd be more than five kinds of animal, and there'd be at least 20 different kinds of plants. Creationism has to be true, because if we evolved, we wouldn't all look exactly the same, and we'd have hair on our bodies, and blood running through our veins just like the animals do.

There's no way that we could possibly have evolved, because if we did, then there'd be other kinds of apes in the world, and some of them would even be similar to us genetically, which is obviously ridiculous.

Creationism must be the way we got here, because if it weren't, why would there be magical purple cows with wings giving us advice on how to choose our mates? Evolutionists can't explain that, can they?

See?

Answer 8

as a results of fact the angel Gabriel instructed me that Jimmy Carter will exchange into the Antichrist aka Dajjal (8th King in Rev. 17) and he will serve yet another term in workplace after the dying of Obama (seventh king). The angel Gabriel instructed me in Aug. 1973 whilst i exchange into in Phillipsbrug, Montana that Jimmy Carter will exchange into the Anti-Christ, and that he is going to alter his call, and divorce his spouse! Obama is going to die first and then the Anti-Christ aka Dajjal who exchange into between the previous 7 Presidents will take his place! Rev. 17:10 And there are seven kings: 5 are fallen, and one is, [and] the different isn't yet come; and whilst he cometh, he might desire to proceed a quick area. All 7 kings have been all alive till the dying of Ronald Reagan June 5, 2004 whilst George W. Bush exchange into in workplace ; one million. Gerald Ford 2. Jimmy Carter 3. Ronald Reagan 4. George H. W. Bush 5. invoice Clinton 6. George W. Bush.... is spoken of interior the present stressful (and one is) as a results of fact till Reagan died (June 5, 2004) all 7 have been alive! 7. Barack Obama.......and one is yet to return! he will die some days after he will enhance taxes! Obama is likewise in Dan. 11:20 Then shall upward thrust up in his components a raiser of taxes [in] the consideration of the dominion: yet interior few days he would be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in conflict. Rev. 17:11 And the beast that exchange into, and is no longer, even he's the 8th, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Answer 9

Evolution is not something you believe in. You understand it. and questions about evolution belong in the science section.

Answer 10

I believe in evolution because creationism (Genisis) doesn't make sense to me.

It's as simple as that for me.

Answer 11

Do you believe in high and low tides that are caused by gravity from the moon? Of course not, it's just something that happens, there is no believing it. You accept it, sure, but you don't believe IN it.

Creation on the other hand, you have to believe in, because if you didn't believe in it then it wouldn't exist, it would just fade away along with the other stories you heard when you were a kid.

As someone once said, evolution isn't there for you to buy into, it's a natural process that happens whether you like it or not. If your faith says that evolution didn't happen and doesn't happen then your faith's the one that's lying to you.