Do creationists actually read?

Of course they read. They just don't read Darwin, or scientific journals and articles with which they disagree. And perhaps they do read them, but they don't agree with them, and that is their privilege.

Personally, I like my nephew's take on the whole thing. He's very religious, and got his B.S. at BYU (Brigham Young University, a private uni owned by the LDS Church, a very conservative church), and is attending law school there now. Here's what he told me.

Evolution isn't a theory. It's a proven fact. It doesn't matter if it makes people uncomfortable or not. It exists. As such, it should be taught in classrooms from elementary school through college. That's hard science. Creationism, or intelligent design, if you prefer, is a possibility. It cannot be proven or disproven, but it can be taught. The difference is it should be taught in a philosophy class, or a religions class. It can be discussed in a science class, but it should not be the focus. Evolution should be the focus, because it can be proven.

Coming from a very conservative kid, I think that's pretty wise. He believes in God, but he also believes in Darwin. And he sees no reason why the two must be mutually exclusive. He can also tell the difference between faith and hard science. He's a smart kid, but really, if he can do it, why can't other people?

**EDIT**

Someone above me mentioned something about how we don't all have the same ancestor. I respectfully suggest he or she look into mitochondrial DNA, Mitochondrial Eve, and Mitochondrial Adam (also called Y-chromosomal Adam). We all have the same female ancestor, Eve, and all men have the same male ancestor, Adam, but they didn't live together. They lived about 80,000 years apart. It's food for thought--an apple, perhaps.

Skippy, I have rebutted and refuted the supposed evolutionary "fact" several times in R&S as have several other Christians. I either get thumbs down or ignored completely by the supposed "experts" in R&S. I have yet to get a rebuttal. Evidently a Christian who actually has an answer frightens some evolutionists. This is why I seldom answer these sorts of questions anymore. I never get any responses back unless it is either YouTube or a "link" like you posted. Creationists are always accused of quoting from Scripture to prove a point but evolutionists posting outside links and videos is doing the same thing. Sounds like a double standard to me.

I used to be a hardcore atheist and evolutionist just like yourself, for 20 years. I knew all the arguments; I used to come to places like this and tell creationists how stupid they were for believing what they did, just like you.

However, UNLIKE you, I listened to the other side of the argument with an open mind, and I found it made a LOT more sense than evolution! I have now been a Christian and a young-earth creationist for 6 years, and I am quite happy on this side. I look at all the evidence around me in the Earth, in outer space, in my own body, and I can see the plain evidence of intelligent design everywhere. I don't need to make up some far-fetched theory to explain these things just so I can avoid mentioning "God".

Yes

What?! Where have you been? Christians have handled this topic quite handily on Yahoo answers, just do a search and see for yourself.

what evidence? there is no evidence for macro evolution.

"Micro evolution" should not have the evolution tag on it because its variation.--there is no proof for macro evolution.

Creationists agree with variation in the gene pool. However, that does not prove that we all have the same ancestor.

show me proof for Macro Evolution

you cant..

thanks,

Evolution is not "scientific."

Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable—three absolutely necessary ingredients for any theory to be deemed scientific. To be scientific, evolution must be based on theories that are falsifiable, which means that such theories can be repeated and disproved (if false) by others. The assumptions for any experiment cannot be rigged to lead only to the conclusion that the theory is true (which evolutionists have done). It has to allow the scientist the option of concluding that the theory is false. The scientific method has four steps:

1.Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2.Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

3.Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4.Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.

What makes evolution unscientific is that it cannot be tested. Some may object to this statement by saying that we can observe evolution by looking at the rocks and fossils in the Grand Canyon and many other places. The problem with that objection is that evolution, as it is defined, is not rocks and fossils, it is a process of the mutation of one species into another that supposedly continues to this day.

Since any hypothesis has to be based on observation, where can we observe the process of evolutionary mutations taking place? We can’t, because they are not taking place. In actual fact, if evolution were true, we should see many more transitional (intermediate) species of plants and animals than we see fully-formed species, yet we see none. We do not see them in the fossil layers; we do not see them around us in living "half-species." They do not exist.

However, evolutionists are not even looking at the process of evolution. They are looking at what they assume are the results of some hitherto unobserved process that they call organic evolution. They assume the results of that process are recorded in the fossil record. Their theory is based on two mutually supportive (and faulty) assumptions: that the fossils date the rocks, and the rocks, in turn, date the fossils. It cannot be both. You have to pick one or the other and test it.

Evolution is statistically possible.

To avoid allowing this discussion to become too complicated, let me quote a number of well-known scientists.

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place" (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability).

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10 340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 1080 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" (George Gallup, famous statistician).

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred" (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner).

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems).

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

Ftwasher -

Love the copy paste job you did there.

You say Evolution is untestable, yet i fail to see how creationists proove that a big imaginary friend in the sky made us all.

And your quotes all use statistic probability to discredit evolution theory.

Even if you have a billion to one chance of life spontaneously appearing, there are billions and billions of stars in the universe. By your own proof therefore life had to have spontaneously appeared somewhere in the universe... why not on earth?

Why are creationists so quick it disprove evolutionary theory with drivel, yet fail to provide a shred of proof for their own.

Creationism requires faith. You don't need proof, and any disproof isn't relevant since you don't believe it can be disproved. There isn't any point arguing with a closed mind.

Yes Iv read many of them. The crux of the problem is humans (having limited knowledge) try 2 understand what God did by imposing limitations asigned 2 man concerning man's ability 2 understand things 2 God's abilities. More reasons I know they're wrong:

Some scientific finds r true but it doesnt mean "all" claims by Scientists/others r true (many dont take time & energy 2 carefully think thru things b4 coming out 4 or against it). Many dont properly take in2 account all it takes 2 create a universe/life (they tend 2 focus on things "seeming" 2 support what they want 2 &/or u 2 believe).

In science we established laws of physics. We can't see actual laws of physics. Rather, we see the results & interpret & apply them in accordance with whats been observed 2 be true thru experiments/calculations. Same is true regarding God. Just b/c we can't see God doesn't mean He doesnt exist.

There may be forensic evidence 4 some micro-adaptation & 4 some "appearance" of macro-evolution but most is inconclusive @ best & pure conjecture @ worst. Finding the beginning & reason 4 it all is unattainable by scientific method alone (a billions of years old cold case). We didnt see it take place.

But things in creation show an Intelligent Being was involved or the universe & we wouldnt b here (ignoring where it came from). Standing out r:

1. We have 2 lungs & 2 kidneys - each has a near perfect mirror-image companion organ. No matter how u try 2 explain it away, making a mirror-image organ takes full reverse engineering, knowledge & understanding of its companion's functions & purpose or it cant be created.

2. Our bodies r highly symmetrical from 1 side 2 the other. Its impossible unless 1 has an outside overview position allowing full comprehension of the entire organism (i.e. feather color patterns).

3. We have 2 arms & 2 legs. Each is perfectly designed & precisely engineered 2 work with its mirror-image companion. An outside position is required 2 fully comprehend the whole organism & purpose 4 all parts, 2 create it 2 such perfection.

4. The "being" of a cell is confined 2 within the cell membrane & cant know or b aware of much beyond itself. A cell is magnitudes more intelligent than all humanity & has amazing powers 2 know all of an organism's functions & purpose or it isnt the "brain" behind creation 4 many millions of incredibly diverse species. If evolution had a chance of being the source of creation it would require there only be 2 or 3 "kinds" of different bodies with several related species (it would take many billions of trillions of light years longer than the universe has existed 2 have the slightest chance of producing many millions of species of such incredible diversity)

5. Many cells of an organism never contact others much beyond its tiny cell. Mostly, cells & organisms r just copies of their parents doing about the same things as all ancestors. U wont find a bird whom builds a better nest than their parents & their chicks build even a better nest. U wont find a bear improving his living conditions (or passing them 2 his young). Either a cell has 2 lives - 1 copying their parents & 1 secret life working on improvements or someone of greater intelligence than all mankind created everything.

6. Others point 2 DNA (or RNA in the 1rst organisms). But a cell needs DNA 2 function & DNA cant function without a cell. So, we have a which came 1rst a cell or DNA problem. Without 1rst having great intelligence, full knowledge & understanding of how an organism is constructed it cant be created. If an ape finds a combination lock he wouldnt know what it was & even if he turns the dial over & over again he wouldnt know what he was doing & the chances against getting it right is astronimical - especially if it had 150 or more no. 2 find in the right order & even if he got that far he still wouldnt know what a lock is 4.

A cell has little "inteligence" & DNA is much more complex than a combination lock (especially in higher life forms) so the odds against figuring out & using DNA (in the correct sequence) is many magnitudes higher than 4 a lock). RNA/DNA r building blocks common to all life - having 98% of other species' DNA doesnt prove evolution. DNA like a computer code (but more complex) requires great intelligence 2 identify & assign its proper order - its useless unless u understand it. Give a book to an ape. Its useless to him as he cant learn from whats written - intelligence is required.

7. In the fossil record we dont find millions of trial & error organisms that should exist if natural selection or fittest survivor is the source of creation (no organisms existed be4). The odds r so great against near perfection happenning 4 many millions of greatly diverse species, it couldnt take place unless 1 had full knowledge & understanding of what theyre doing BEFORE millions of organisms could be created 2 such precision. If not true millions of misfit organisms with mistakes, having only 1 or 3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head or where an arm should be or a fin where a leg should be should exist. Millions more misfit fossils should exist than of the perfection found in nature.

8. U won't find species like a horse mating a goat, a frog mating fish, a rabbit mating an otter, a lizzard mating a bird, a cow mating a hog, etc. Species with similar genes/characteristics rarely mate in the wild. Only a few succeed @ bearing young. Its very rare that a wild crossbreed/hybrid reaches maturity or can bear over 1 litter (usually that litter cant produce or has complications that kills off the crossbreed). Only human intervention brings more success but even that has lead 2 some bad results.

9. Evolution processes being "the" source of all creation would be like having a blind man build a car he's never heard of, seen, touched, heard or rode in. It cant be done without 1rst teaching him about the functions, necessary parts & how 2 put it all together so the car will function.

10. Look @ the huge amount of intelligence, knowledge, understanding, time & energy used 2 create & improve an airplane's capabilities (& many mistakes). If people didnt fully learn what 2 do we'd still be earthbound.

11. Creation is astronomically more complex than an airplane. The more complex an organism, the greater the amount of intelligence, knowledge & understanding needed 2 create it. It can only be done by an Intelligent Designer who already fully understands what He's doing - the sheer complexity of man is evidence of God (airplanes show we're created in God's image - God had 2 be the source of all creation or it couldnt exist let alone evolve).

12. An incredibly Intelligent Being, capable of building a universe, would know the environment His earthly organisms are 2 occupy. So, He built in adaptability so His organisms could survive various earthly environments.

13. Earth happens to be in the best possible orbit 2 support life. It has the right amount of gravity, the right axis & rotation speed, the right atmosphere & needed amount of water. The moon's the right size & in the right orbit 2 provide tidal cycles needed by organisms. Just 1 or 2 relatively small variants in our orbit/envirnment & most likely life would be very different & higher forms of life wouldve died off in a relatively short time, if they couldve survived.

Yes, theres many religions, built on what man wants God 2 be like. I realized they cant all be right (Theres 1 Bible - why so many interpretations & fatal errors? II Pet 1:**19-21). Religion wont teach u much about God (they cant teach what they don't know) but God knows what He's doing.

Many miss is this: Jesus is the only 1 in history whom stated He's "the" way, "the" truth & "the" life & no 1 gets 2 God w/o Him (Jn 14:6; 5:39; 10:1,7; Acts 4:12) & is the only 1 whom came from God. Its fully true or theres no truth & cant be any God (He knows what He's doing or He's not God).

Since Jesus is the only way 2 know God, "the" whole truth was complete & finished thru Jesus. So any claimed new or other religious beliefs or from self-proclaimed prophets & teachers r null & void & wont lead u 2 God. God always knew all Jesus was 2 do.

God outsmarted man - the Bible is the only 1 that cant be properly understood without Jesus (Jn 14:6; II Cor 3:14, Is 29:11-12 - If the Jewish people cant pierce the veil over the OT without Jesus then for sure all gentiles cant). Thats why theres many interpretations & many thinking its fairytales (Jesus came bearing the sword of division).

Whoever seeks Jesus with all his heart & soul will find our real God & His Kingdom (u will know the truth & it will set u free). But, why should God want u 2 live with Him forever if u dont want 2 know Him (reason 4 free will - Jn 1:12-13)?

voyc4rmwldrns