Creation via Evolution

[micatala]

In the Transitional Fossils thread, the following two posts were contributed by dunsapy.

You do know that we are apes right?

Absolutely , not. We are a special creation, different than all other creation.
I even include scientists in that.

According to you every creature is a special creation.
Even a mouse is different then all the other creatures.
I guess with all your special creations you can't seem to come up with any explanation for all the data and similarities that make perfect sense in their environments. How do you explain all the extinctions?

Yes that is true. But man is totally different than all other 'animals'.
There is a huge gap between any apes than man. There are no in between's we see today , there should be millions of them.
The fossil record is consistent , that there are no in between fossils found for any of animals, including man. No wonder science says they will never prove evolution. You can't proof something that is unprovable.

His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.�—ROMANS 1:20.

I think this scripture is correct, it is inexcusable, not to realize there is a creator.
Why would this scripture even be in the bible , except that God knew , that there would be people that would so blinded as not to see it.
I use the word blinded because, scientists are not stupid people, so the only answer is that they are blinded. Science doesn't follow their own findings.

Given that these relate more to theological than scientifice arguments, I thought it would be good to start a thread on these issues.



Questions for debate are:


Is considering evolution as part of God's creative process inconsistent with the Bible?


Does accepting that evolution of life has occurred necessarily deny God's existence?



When Genesis describes man as being created in God's image, how should we or might we understand or interpret this?



Keep in mind that on the Theology Forum, the Bible can be considered authoritative. However, posters are free to argue for their own particular biblical interpretations.

[Goat]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):

You obviously are in 'christian school' that isn't giving you accurate information. The thing is that you don't have to start with a full eye. You can start with a single cell that is a bit more sensitive to light. Here is a link
that has 25 peer reviewed articles about eye evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Oh, I looked at your link and I am sorry that you are getting such a substandard scientific education.

Now, let's just look at just one of the organs .. because that is one that you claim will be irreducible complex,, yet isn't. Look at this site, and it will describe how the heart developed over time

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

[userr123]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):

You obviously are in 'christian school' that isn't giving you accurate information. The thing is that you don't have to start with a full eye. You can start with a single cell that is a bit more sensitive to light. Here is a link
that has 25 peer reviewed articles about eye evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Oh, I looked at your link and I am sorry that you are getting such a substandard scientific education.

Now, let's just look at just one of the organs .. because that is one that you claim will be irreducible complex,, yet isn't. Look at this site, and it will describe how the heart developed over time

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

The link you provided for the heart describes how the four-chambered human heart was formed from the basic heart of a worm. First of all, how did the worm's heart come to be?? Second, how does the heart of a worm get to the human body, let alone evolve into the human heart. And another question, why, if evolution is true, did we stop evolving?

[Goat]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):

You obviously are in 'christian school' that isn't giving you accurate information. The thing is that you don't have to start with a full eye. You can start with a single cell that is a bit more sensitive to light. Here is a link
that has 25 peer reviewed articles about eye evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Oh, I looked at your link and I am sorry that you are getting such a substandard scientific education.

Now, let's just look at just one of the organs .. because that is one that you claim will be irreducible complex,, yet isn't. Look at this site, and it will describe how the heart developed over time

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

The link you provided for the heart describes how the four-chambered human heart was formed from the basic heart of a worm. First of all, how did the worm's heart come to be?? Second, how does the heart of a worm get to the human body, let alone evolve into the human heart. And another question, why, if evolution is true, did we stop evolving?

It evolved very slowly.. it started as a stronger muscles in a vein to help pumping, and then started getting chambers and hearts. The heart evolved as the species evolved, and a 4 chamber heart existed before there were primates.

And, as far as I can see, we have not stopped evolving. Evolution happens over generations, not in a single life time, so any single individual won't see much evolution. An example of more modern evolution is the gene that protects against the black plague. In Europe, people that had a certain mutation of a gene that controls the shape of allowing substances to get into a cell for nutrition were able to resist dying from the black plague. Consequently, this particular gene became much more prevalent in Europe.
Because of the environmental pressure of disease, this allele became more common. This is evolution in action. IT just so happens that people who have this gene from both their parents are immune to the virus that cause HIV. Evolution in action.

[userr123]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):

You obviously are in 'christian school' that isn't giving you accurate information. The thing is that you don't have to start with a full eye. You can start with a single cell that is a bit more sensitive to light. Here is a link
that has 25 peer reviewed articles about eye evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Oh, I looked at your link and I am sorry that you are getting such a substandard scientific education.

Now, let's just look at just one of the organs .. because that is one that you claim will be irreducible complex,, yet isn't. Look at this site, and it will describe how the heart developed over time

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

The link you provided for the heart describes how the four-chambered human heart was formed from the basic heart of a worm. First of all, how did the worm's heart come to be?? Second, how does the heart of a worm get to the human body, let alone evolve into the human heart. And another question, why, if evolution is true, did we stop evolving?

It evolved very slowly.. it started as a stronger muscles in a vein to help pumping, and then started getting chambers and hearts. The heart evolved as the species evolved, and a 4 chamber heart existed before there were primates.

And, as far as I can see, we have not stopped evolving. Evolution happens over generations, not in a single life time, so any single individual won't see much evolution. An example of more modern evolution is the gene that protects against the black plague. In Europe, people that had a certain mutation of a gene that controls the shape of allowing substances to get into a cell for nutrition were able to resist dying from the black plague. Consequently, this particular gene became much more prevalent in Europe.
Because of the environmental pressure of disease, this allele became more common. This is evolution in action. IT just so happens that people who have this gene from both their parents are immune to the virus that cause HIV. Evolution in action.

You said "it started as stronger muscles in a vein.." Where did the stronger muscles come from and where did the vein come from?
The only thing I want to know, is how it all began. Evolutionists only have small amounts of evidence for only a few organs but there are thousands and thousands of organs and organisms that have no evidence of evolving. There are no contradictory facts to creation whereas there are plenty of facts that go against evolution. I just can't tell why people believe so strongly in something that is extremely improbable when there are much easier and sensical explanations (created by an intelligent being: God).

[Goat]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):

You obviously are in 'christian school' that isn't giving you accurate information. The thing is that you don't have to start with a full eye. You can start with a single cell that is a bit more sensitive to light. Here is a link
that has 25 peer reviewed articles about eye evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Oh, I looked at your link and I am sorry that you are getting such a substandard scientific education.

Now, let's just look at just one of the organs .. because that is one that you claim will be irreducible complex,, yet isn't. Look at this site, and it will describe how the heart developed over time

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

The link you provided for the heart describes how the four-chambered human heart was formed from the basic heart of a worm. First of all, how did the worm's heart come to be?? Second, how does the heart of a worm get to the human body, let alone evolve into the human heart. And another question, why, if evolution is true, did we stop evolving?

It evolved very slowly.. it started as a stronger muscles in a vein to help pumping, and then started getting chambers and hearts. The heart evolved as the species evolved, and a 4 chamber heart existed before there were primates.

And, as far as I can see, we have not stopped evolving. Evolution happens over generations, not in a single life time, so any single individual won't see much evolution. An example of more modern evolution is the gene that protects against the black plague. In Europe, people that had a certain mutation of a gene that controls the shape of allowing substances to get into a cell for nutrition were able to resist dying from the black plague. Consequently, this particular gene became much more prevalent in Europe.
Because of the environmental pressure of disease, this allele became more common. This is evolution in action. IT just so happens that people who have this gene from both their parents are immune to the virus that cause HIV. Evolution in action.

You said "it started as stronger muscles in a vein.." Where did the stronger muscles come from and where did the vein come from?
The only thing I want to know, is how it all began. Evolutionists only have small amounts of evidence for only a few organs but there are thousands and thousands of organs and organisms that have no evidence of evolving. There are no contradictory facts to creation whereas there are plenty of facts that go against evolution. I just can't tell why people believe so strongly in something that is extremely improbable when there are much easier and sensical explanations (created by an intelligent being: God).

So, you are rejecting stuff that has evidence and proclaiming 'God did it'.

What is your evidence that "God did it",.. not an attack on evolution, but actual evidence that there was an intelligent designer? It has already been shown that every example in Behe's 'Darwin's black box' that he declared as 'irreducible complex' could evolve naturally, without an intelligent designer.

Since you are making the positive claim that 'created by an intelligent' being is more sensible, show me the evidence that is not merely an attack on evolution.

[userr123]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):

You obviously are in 'christian school' that isn't giving you accurate information. The thing is that you don't have to start with a full eye. You can start with a single cell that is a bit more sensitive to light. Here is a link
that has 25 peer reviewed articles about eye evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3k441k67q3n/

Oh, I looked at your link and I am sorry that you are getting such a substandard scientific education.

Now, let's just look at just one of the organs .. because that is one that you claim will be irreducible complex,, yet isn't. Look at this site, and it will describe how the heart developed over time

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

The link you provided for the heart describes how the four-chambered human heart was formed from the basic heart of a worm. First of all, how did the worm's heart come to be?? Second, how does the heart of a worm get to the human body, let alone evolve into the human heart. And another question, why, if evolution is true, did we stop evolving?

It evolved very slowly.. it started as a stronger muscles in a vein to help pumping, and then started getting chambers and hearts. The heart evolved as the species evolved, and a 4 chamber heart existed before there were primates.

And, as far as I can see, we have not stopped evolving. Evolution happens over generations, not in a single life time, so any single individual won't see much evolution. An example of more modern evolution is the gene that protects against the black plague. In Europe, people that had a certain mutation of a gene that controls the shape of allowing substances to get into a cell for nutrition were able to resist dying from the black plague. Consequently, this particular gene became much more prevalent in Europe.
Because of the environmental pressure of disease, this allele became more common. This is evolution in action. IT just so happens that people who have this gene from both their parents are immune to the virus that cause HIV. Evolution in action.

You said "it started as stronger muscles in a vein.." Where did the stronger muscles come from and where did the vein come from?
The only thing I want to know, is how it all began. Evolutionists only have small amounts of evidence for only a few organs but there are thousands and thousands of organs and organisms that have no evidence of evolving. There are no contradictory facts to creation whereas there are plenty of facts that go against evolution. I just can't tell why people believe so strongly in something that is extremely improbable when there are much easier and sensical explanations (created by an intelligent being: God).

So, you are rejecting stuff that has evidence and proclaiming 'God did it'.

What is your evidence that "God did it",.. not an attack on evolution, but actual evidence that there was an intelligent designer? It has already been shown that every example in Behe's 'Darwin's black box' that he declared as 'irreducible complex' could evolve naturally, without an intelligent designer.

Since you are making the positive claim that 'created by an intelligent' being is more sensible, show me the evidence that is not merely an attack on evolution.

If you just look at the world and the detail and vastness of the universe, there had to be an intelligent designer who created it; who had a plan and a vision for the world. There's no way that it could of gradually changed by chance, becoming what it is today. If you read the bible, you notice many of the hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled, there is evidence of the Great Flood, etc. But most of all, there is evidence of God's unfailing love and mercy shown throughout my life and people's lives around me that assure me that there really is a God. So if so many other parts of the Bible and Christianity are true, then why would the story of creation NOT be? That's also one thing that I dislike; I don't look at Christianity as a religion, I look at it as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that I strongly recommend for you.

[Goat]

If you just look at the world and the detail and vastness of the universe, there had to be an intelligent designer who created it; who had a plan and a vision for the world. There's no way that it could of gradually changed by chance, becoming what it is today. If you read the bible, you notice many of the hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled, there is evidence of the Great Flood, etc. But most of all, there is evidence of God's unfailing love and mercy shown throughout my life and people's lives around me that assure me that there really is a God. So if so many other parts of the Bible and Christianity are true, then why would the story of creation NOT be? That's also one thing that I dislike; I don't look at Christianity as a religion, I look at it as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that I strongly recommend for you.

What you are describing is the logical fallacy known as 'personal incredibility'.
You do not understand that complexity can happen with simple rules making a filter for actions.. so that it can give the 'appearance' of design without being a designer. As for those 'hundreds of prophecies', that has been discussed here many times. They all fall under some very specific categories.

1) Out of context claims
2) Mistranslations.
3) Retrofitted to another situation.
4) Written to, and not a prophecy to begin with.
5) after the fact prophecies.

I am sure if you brought them out, and we looked at those prophecies in context, you might be rather surprised at how little those prophecies are genuine.

So, do you have anything beside logical fallacies and false claims? How does that have anything to do with demonstrating 'Creationism' at all.

You made references to I.D., and assume that it is an actual science.

What is a prediction that can be tested for I.D.? What statement , if shown true, would falsify that concept as a theory?

[userr123]

If you just look at the world and the detail and vastness of the universe, there had to be an intelligent designer who created it; who had a plan and a vision for the world. There's no way that it could of gradually changed by chance, becoming what it is today. If you read the bible, you notice many of the hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled, there is evidence of the Great Flood, etc. But most of all, there is evidence of God's unfailing love and mercy shown throughout my life and people's lives around me that assure me that there really is a God. So if so many other parts of the Bible and Christianity are true, then why would the story of creation NOT be? That's also one thing that I dislike; I don't look at Christianity as a religion, I look at it as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that I strongly recommend for you.

What you are describing is the logical fallacy known as 'personal incredibility'.
You do not understand that complexity can happen with simple rules making a filter for actions.. so that it can give the 'appearance' of design without being a designer. As for those 'hundreds of prophecies', that has been discussed here many times. They all fall under some very specific categories.

1) Out of context claims
2) Mistranslations.
3) Retrofitted to another situation.
4) Written to, and not a prophecy to begin with.
5) after the fact prophecies.

I am sure if you brought them out, and we looked at those prophecies in context, you might be rather surprised at how little those prophecies are genuine.

So, do you have anything beside logical fallacies and false claims? How does that have anything to do with demonstrating 'Creationism' at all.

You made references to I.D., and assume that it is an actual science.

What is a prediction that can be tested for I.D.? What statement , if shown true, would falsify that concept as a theory?

congratulaions. you just stumpted a 16 year old kid. Well I'm not done and I know I can argue against that. Just give me a little and I'll be sure to get back to you.

[Goat]

If you just look at the world and the detail and vastness of the universe, there had to be an intelligent designer who created it; who had a plan and a vision for the world. There's no way that it could of gradually changed by chance, becoming what it is today. If you read the bible, you notice many of the hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled, there is evidence of the Great Flood, etc. But most of all, there is evidence of God's unfailing love and mercy shown throughout my life and people's lives around me that assure me that there really is a God. So if so many other parts of the Bible and Christianity are true, then why would the story of creation NOT be? That's also one thing that I dislike; I don't look at Christianity as a religion, I look at it as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that I strongly recommend for you.

What you are describing is the logical fallacy known as 'personal incredibility'.
You do not understand that complexity can happen with simple rules making a filter for actions.. so that it can give the 'appearance' of design without being a designer. As for those 'hundreds of prophecies', that has been discussed here many times. They all fall under some very specific categories.

1) Out of context claims
2) Mistranslations.
3) Retrofitted to another situation.
4) Written to, and not a prophecy to begin with.
5) after the fact prophecies.

I am sure if you brought them out, and we looked at those prophecies in context, you might be rather surprised at how little those prophecies are genuine.

So, do you have anything beside logical fallacies and false claims? How does that have anything to do with demonstrating 'Creationism' at all.

You made references to I.D., and assume that it is an actual science.

What is a prediction that can be tested for I.D.? What statement , if shown true, would falsify that concept as a theory?

congratulaions. you just stumpted a 16 year old kid. Well I'm not done and I know I can argue against that. Just give me a little and I'll be sure to get back to you.

Don't worry.. getting stumped is a way to LEARN.

The problem is that with I.D... is not even the best proponents of it can do those very basic things that are required for it to be science. That makes I.D. to be very bad religion, and not science at all. Your teacher wouldn't be able to answer that either, nor could the person who made the 'wonders of the cell in 2008' video. If they could make it equal in explanatory power to the Theory of Evolution, and make equal predictions, that person would win the Nobel prize.

You will see that the proponents of creationism or i.d. will be using such logical fallacies 'see, how can it possilby happen' (without support about why it can't ) by random chance (where no one says it was random) (also known as the logical fallacy of 'personal incredibility' or argument from ignorance).

Do yourself a favor and don't accept the science that is pushed by your school without questioning. Find out what the response form scientists have about the claims about I.D. and creationism that your teachers makes.... and then decide for yourself. Evolution does not claim there is not A god.. it does not claim that there is a god. What evolution examines is how life changes over time. No, it doesn't know everything.. but what a boring world it would be if we knew everything. What biologists try to do is FIND OUT what is not known. It assumes that there is a natural explaination, and sees if it can figure out with tests and theories if they can figure it out.

Take a look at the claims of your teachers about creationism, and see if they can back it up with something more than pointing to their specific interpretation of the bible. I will point out that there are many Christians that DO accept evolution , and it does not affect their devotion or how religious they are.

[userr123]

If you just look at the world and the detail and vastness of the universe, there had to be an intelligent designer who created it; who had a plan and a vision for the world. There's no way that it could of gradually changed by chance, becoming what it is today. If you read the bible, you notice many of the hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled, there is evidence of the Great Flood, etc. But most of all, there is evidence of God's unfailing love and mercy shown throughout my life and people's lives around me that assure me that there really is a God. So if so many other parts of the Bible and Christianity are true, then why would the story of creation NOT be? That's also one thing that I dislike; I don't look at Christianity as a religion, I look at it as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that I strongly recommend for you.

What you are describing is the logical fallacy known as 'personal incredibility'.
You do not understand that complexity can happen with simple rules making a filter for actions.. so that it can give the 'appearance' of design without being a designer. As for those 'hundreds of prophecies', that has been discussed here many times. They all fall under some very specific categories.

1) Out of context claims
2) Mistranslations.
3) Retrofitted to another situation.
4) Written to, and not a prophecy to begin with.
5) after the fact prophecies.

I am sure if you brought them out, and we looked at those prophecies in context, you might be rather surprised at how little those prophecies are genuine.

So, do you have anything beside logical fallacies and false claims? How does that have anything to do with demonstrating 'Creationism' at all.

You made references to I.D., and assume that it is an actual science.

What is a prediction that can be tested for I.D.? What statement , if shown true, would falsify that concept as a theory?

congratulaions. you just stumpted a 16 year old kid. Well I'm not done and I know I can argue against that. Just give me a little and I'll be sure to get back to you.

Don't worry.. getting stumped is a way to LEARN.

The problem is that with I.D... is not even the best proponents of it can do those very basic things that are required for it to be science. That makes I.D. to be very bad religion, and not science at all. Your teacher wouldn't be able to answer that either, nor could the person who made the 'wonders of the cell in 2008' video. If they could make it equal in explanatory power to the Theory of Evolution, and make equal predictions, that person would win the Nobel prize.

You will see that the proponents of creationism or i.d. will be using such logical fallacies 'see, how can it possilby happen' (without support about why it can't ) by random chance (where no one says it was random) (also known as the logical fallacy of 'personal incredibility' or argument from ignorance).

Do yourself a favor and don't accept the science that is pushed by your school without questioning. Find out what the response form scientists have about the claims about I.D. and creationism that your teachers makes.... and then decide for yourself. Evolution does not claim there is not A god.. it does not claim that there is a god. What evolution examines is how life changes over time. No, it doesn't know everything.. but what a boring world it would be if we knew everything. What biologists try to do is FIND OUT what is not known. It assumes that there is a natural explaination, and sees if it can figure out with tests and theories if they can figure it out.

Take a look at the claims of your teachers about creationism, and see if they can back it up with something more than pointing to their specific interpretation of the bible. I will point out that there are many Christians that DO accept evolution , and it does not affect their devotion or how religious they are.

Ok I'm going to go back to the flagella of a cell. The flagella has a very complex "outboard" motor in order for it to move. There are about 14 distinct parts in the flagellum motor. Each part of the flagellum motor has it's own function that is not found anywhere else. The main problem I have with evolution is how each one of these parts was formed. It couldn't of gradually formed because if it was not fully there, the cell would not be able to move anywhere and it would therefore die.