T Nation

Evolution vs. Creation


Why Should Christians believe in Creation?

We believe in creation, first of all, not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. The Lord Jesus is revealed in the Bible to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-3), and He is for Christians the Lord of all and the Head over all things, including science (Acts 10:36, Ephesians 1:22). Our Head has said something about science in John 5:45-47, namely this: If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we must believe Moses' writings. What did Moses write about first of all? He wrote about the creation of all things by God. So we judge science by the Bible and not the other way around. "We walk by faith, not by sight." (I Corinthians 5:7)

God has given us Scientific Evidence for Creation

Since the beginning all men have been without excuse if they have not acknowledged the Creator God, for the evidence is all around them in the created world (Romans 1:19-20). And modern science has revealed a vast web of evidence which supports the biblical record of creation. Let us think first about the logic of the scientific argument for creation.

The Logic of the Scientific case for Creation

Creation is by definition a divine miracle, an act of God which is outside of and above the physical laws He has established in the world. Therefore, scientists who believe in creation do not try to devise theories to explain how God created, for human beings cannot understand how God created. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists say that they are devising theories to explain the evolution of all life and that they are discovering natural processes or mechanisms which can evolve new plants and animals. So we say to them, "The burden of proof is on you. Come on, now, give us theories which really explain evolution, and show us the natural mechanisms or processes which can produce new designs and evolve new plants and animals."

Has evolutionary theory really explained evolution? No. Have they discovered any mechanism or process of genetics which can evolve anything really new. No, they have not. And, as long as this failure of evolutionary science continues, divine special creation continues to be an intellectually and scientifically viable belief for anybody, including scientists, to hold.

A Brief Look at the Evidence

The Fossil Evidence. Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence. Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

These systematic gaps in the fossil record mean that every basic type of plant or animal seems to appear suddenly in the fossil-bearing rocks. The fossils speak of sudden appearance of the kinds, not the slow, gradual change of one kind into another kind. But this fossil evidence appears more in agreement with special creation than with evolution, doesn't it?

Biological Design. Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation. Secular scientists, when pressed, have to admit that they cannot offer testable or even plausible explanations for the origin of biodesigns. For just one example, consider the little intestinal microbe, Escherichia coli. Each tiny single-celled microbe propels itself around with six corkscrew propellers which are connected by universal joints to six constant torque, variable speed, reversible rotary motors!

Evolutionary scientists have not the slightest idea how this complex assembly of complex, interdependent parts could have evolved. Yet, they believe it happened. They have faith in dumb atoms. Faith in the Creator God is far superior.

Genetics: For thousands of years intelligent humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals to develop varieties which are of special value to man. So there are 150 varieties of dogs, scores of varieties of roses, many different varieties of cattle and sheep, of apples and potatoes, etc. But they are still dogs, roses, cattle, sheep, apples and potatoes. There is much variation under artificial selection. Also, there is much variation in nature in the wild. But the changes are always limited. Genetics teaches that there are barriers through which genetic change cannot go. Species of plants and animals exist in groups of species which are separated from all other such groups. And this is just what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 where Moses tells us that God created the "kinds" of plants and animals to reproduce each one "after its own kind." Genetics gives the lie to Charles Darwin's notion that, given time, genetic variation has been unlimited, so that an amoeba could evolve into a university professor in 3 billion years.

Molecular Biology. In 1953 Crick and Watson demonstrated the helical structure of the DNA molecules which are the genes that control inheritance of characters. Since then the new science of molecular biology has opened up a vast new field of knowledge. The amazing accomplishments of molecular biologists are a tribute to the power of the human intellect and of the scientific method. The knowledge of cell biology at the level of the individual molecules is expected to give understanding of life and of evolution. However, after over 30 years of molecular biology it can be said the evolutionary theory has yet actually to explain or demonstrate the origin of anything new. He can boldly say that today there are no testable scientific theories for inheritance, development of the embryo from egg to animal, formation of new species, or the evolution of anything new.

Evidences for Evolution. The standard evidences adduced for evolution can either be shown to be invalid or be reinterpreted within the framework of the creation model of origins. For example the stages and similarities of embryos of different species can be shown to be related to the condition and needs of particular species at each stage. Similarities revealed by comparative anatomy (of the vertebrates, for example) can be explained in terms of the Creator's use of basic designs modified for particular applications. Biological classification reveals the separateness of the kinds, and the data for alleged molecular evolution also shows the separateness of the kinds. Limited space forbids more discussion of these subjects in this brief paper.


The advocates of evolution are unable to adduce fossil intermediate forms which show an actual historical process of evolution of new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which really explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred. Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, divine special creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.


My fellow Christians and I are not being unscientific in the least because we believe that in the beginning God created the kinds of plants and animals, each to reproduce after its own kind. As Christian citizens we should openly avow our faith in the biblical record of creation. And we should work to stop the dogmatic teaching of evolution and the persecution of Christians in the tax-funded public schools and universities.

Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Ok, no evolution, creation. Since that is not a scientific theory I have nothing against it.

As a scientific theory it would be completely worthless because it doesn?t explain anything.

The theory of evolution explains how infinitely complex organisms evolved, because of the competition of replicators (genes).

You do not gain anything by introducing an even more complex being "God" that creates everything, because now you would have to explain how such a being entered the scene.

Now you are pretty much back where you started.


The theory of evolution explains nothing. Did you even read my post. There has been absolutely no proof given that a species can jump from one species to another. Where is YOUR proof? It is a theory, period. Explaining how God got here is not for us people to explain.


The theory of evolution explains nothing. Did you even read my post. There has been absolutely no proof given that a species can jump from one species to another. Where is YOUR proof? It is a theory, period. Explaining how God got here is not for us people to explain.

I have a big question for all the evolutionists:

Which came first the child or the adult?


Tubesteak boogie...

but I had to reply.

It is interesting. So was Tom Cruise on Oprah. Damn, that dude's crazy :slight_smile:

Charles Darwin IS MY GOD!! I mean, since when did evolutionary theory become a cult?

This quote doesn't seem to have any relevance. How does random gene mutation defy the second law of thermodynamics?

Sure thing, physics dude...

I think we have different working definitions of data and logic. Data is information collected from an experiment, often expressed in numbers or other quantifiable data. Logic is a system of argument - for a full definition, consult your local Philosophismist. It's a broad topic.

Do YOU understand what it is? Explain it to me in your own words and how genetic mutation violates it.

Of course! Making up things! THAT'S how to gain full understanding of the universe! It's all so opaque to me now...

Like what?

Haha, sorry, just had a mental image of one of my profs scurrying across the lab to catch the word "hypothesis" in a beaker. I'll move on...

And yet here you are on them there INtarnets communicating with thousands of people who apparently can't solve things, even though the very people you say are morons created the electronics you use, cure diseases, and are on the verge of designer babies. Weird, ain't it?

Nope. Nothing's undeniable. The counterevidence just has to make a lick of sense.

For the sake of argument, we'll call them "smart."

Well, that's one possible model. We're still working out the kinks, as some of the information needed to track a preceise timeline of progression is a LITTLE hard to put together millions of years later.



It does. But I believe you misrepresent it below.

Technically, I think you're right. It's a theory constructed by the information found through science by "smart" people.

Is it big?


Um... you mean like why my pee-pee gets big and hard sometimes? Or do you mean how they get expressed and grow from a little spermie and egg all the way to big ol' people? 'Cause we know both. Or is it something else?

I like the idea of anthropometric DNA that has read all the books people have written about how the body works. How do I talk to it? My right shoulder sometimes makes a clicking sound.

We know a LOT bit about natural selection. But it's not the only mechanism at work in evolution. Where did the traits that affect which type of creatures survive from a given population come from?

I don't really think this is true. Ever seen X-Men? Those guys have some pretty wacky traits. If DNA ever wants to make me shoot laser beams out of my eyes, that'd be great.

Natural selection also weeds out some traits that are caused by random mutations. You know, like people born without reproductive organs. They don't get to reproduce. Thus, the trait doesn't get passed on (for an overly simplistic statement).

I likes the challenges.

Damn! This must have been posted decades ago.

Have you ever cracked a book and taken a look at what you're arguing against? DNA isn't the only contributor, for one, DNA can be damaged, changed, extended, shortened, you name it. It's a string of freakin' physical particles, it's subject to the laws of physics!

What "obvious hole" did you even bring up?

What sort of cosmic rays? Or do you mean different kinds of radiation?

Fix what up? Nobody claims that random mutation happens for a specifc purpose in a directed manner - hence, "random." Where we are now is the product of millions of years of these random mutations sorting themselves out, not working to "fix things right up."

Is it the Golden Gate? I've always wanted the Golden Gate bridge.

Explain the second law to me. I've looked at some basic explainations, but I wanna hear it from the expert.

You just made baby Jesus cry with that horrible analogy. It'd be more like... somebody shooting trillions of BB guns at trillions of planets (for size) for millions upon millions of years (for timeframe) producing one random set of outcomes, where ours is this one.

I used to think that...

Holy crap! ALL of them?! They've produced EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME of random mutation and subjected it to EVERY possible combination of outcomes, mixing them all together to see what would happen over millions of years?


If they created every possible alternate biological reality, I think that's money well spent.

Hey, where can I get a unicorn?

Can you explain this please?

You jam it in there, transcribe an extra bit if info once in a while, accidentally break and reform a bond.

And it's not better. Just different. Like homosexual marriage. (had to stick to the original thread topic somehow)

Nah, God and I talked last night, he said it's cool. We're just actualizing the free thought and free will he gave us to try to gain a greater understanding of the world around us for the betterment of mankind.

Oh, and he says he doesn't know where he put the science pointing to the soul. He's sorry about that, but says it's a matter of faith now and totally cool that way.



How about this simple question to get a rational discussion started:

Why do butterflies of the same genus and species have different spot arrangements (we'll use monarchs here)? How does Christian Science explain small variations like that?



Why should everyone believe in Evolution?

First of all, not because of blind faith in stories rich with metaphor which have been passed down through ages, but because of something called the "Scientific Method". This method, by its very nature, directs one to inquire about the nature of things (which is the basic aim of science in general) with an eye to answering the questions how and how many. The pursuit of truth is a difficult and time-consuming pastime, but throughout the ages, those who have tread through the undiscovered territory of human knowledge have been rewarded for their efforts. In other words, it is worth it to seek to understand more than what we have already. It is worth it to reach out with your mind and discover the answers to riddles which have baffled our people for ages: Why is the grass green? Why is the sky blue? If I put food up my butt, will I crap out of my mouth? Yes, science is all about questions... and evolution is an attempt to find an answer to this question: How the hell did the human race happen?

The Evidence for Evolution is everywhere you look for it

Every time I open my eyes, I see something that has come about due to the process of evolution. I look in the mirror, and there's a goofy-looking lab tech staring back at me. But how is it that I see? There are animals which have no eyes, and yet there are two eyes right there on my face? If I evolved from a "lower" creature that didn't have eyes... this doesn't make sense. The changes which take place from species to species are easily explained through the process we call genetic mutation and natural selection.

Death. Interestingly, it is death which decides the process of how and when life changes its adaptations. There have been several large periods of extinction in the fossil record (which is anywhere but complete, and never will be... see link below)


and it was during these times that organisms which had been relegated to a minor role in the ecosystem had an opportunity to flourish and take on new forms to better adapt to the environment which had changed so drastically for them.

Studying about the ice ages is pretty cool


In the link above we have expostition about how and why things turned out the way they did. Good stuff. You see, it is the environment which forces life to adapt to new conditions, and this adaptation takes place through genetic mutations.


As you can see, mutations produce the changes in individual organisms which lead to an advantage or a disadvantage for survival. Just like a mutation in a moth which makes its coloring better adapted to hiding from a predatory bird, that advantage is "selected for" in an ecosystem because the other moths without the color mutations are gobbled up and do not reproduce, while the mutated moth does reproduce, eventually leading to a predominance in the mutated moths when there had been ZERO of them before. In a way, this is like creating something from nothing, which is similar to what creationists believe God does with a wave of his hand. As we see here, however, it is not God which does the creating, it is simply genetic mutation which changes things.

Okay, so we know how species changes, and we know how species can become extinct, but how are new species made?



As you can see, the lines between the early amphibians and reptiles are so blurry that it is nearly impossible to assign a particular organism to any specific category. This is an example of how new species emerged from gradual adaptations. The amphibians and reptiles mutated and adapted themselves over a millenia to eventually grow into distinct and different species who cannot inter-reproduce anymore. Their sperm and eggs are just too dissimilar now.

But where's the people, man? You haven't answered my first question! Where and when did the human show up?


Here is a link to one of quadrillions (okay not that many, but there's a lot, okay?) of web pages devoted to the promotion of the idea of human evolution.

But despite the MOUNTAIN of evidence we have discovered about our origins, some people still stubbornly cling to the idea that our creation was magical. Many of these people feel that the theory of evolution invalidates their religious beliefs, while some of them are merely ignorant. Interestingly, there are some religious folks who have "adapted" their belief systems just like the color-changing moths I mentioned earlier, and now say that some accounts of the bible are more metaphor and not literal truth, and that it was the entire universe which was created by God, along with the process of evolution that he deemed "good in all ways".


And this is not entirely unreasonable at all. Perhaps some other enterprising scientist will come along some day with new evidence and new answers to confirm or supplant this idea as well. Only time can tell. Until then, we are left with some measure of speculation about the creation of the universe, the planets, and the stars. But I hope that you now understand that evolution is a real and observable phenomenon.

Thank you


Obviously, the child. The egg came before the chicken as well... this is common sense. What you do not understand is how the egg or the child came to be, and this is your stumbling block. Unless you realize and learn what genetic mutation is, you will never understand how an organism different from its parents can be born.

Remember those Down's Syndrome babies I told you about who have more DNA per cell than their parents? They are real. There really are people with Down's Syndrome. And they really do have a genetic difference from normal people. And their parents aren't like them.

OPEN THAT BRAIN!!! :slight_smile:



you wanted me to shed some light on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to this discussion:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states simply that an isolated system will become more disordered with time. The naturalistic self-transformation of the universe from simple to complex required by evolution is in direct contradiction to the second law. Known "rules" of thermodynamics render the evolutionary origin of stars and planets from condensing clouds of gas implausible. Many evolutionists claim however, that the earth is an open system and local increases in order are possible, e.g. the observation that ordered crystals form spontaneously from less ordered solutions means that evolution from simple to complex can occur. Lets investigate these claims, shall we?

We have seen that in a number of open systems, order would apparently increase by itself. Let's take three examples:
A seed growing into a plant.
Workmen building a car.
Saltwater cooling down to form salt crystals.
The Second Law is not violated in any of these, since the total disorder in the universe increases as follows:

Disorder Decreases
Disorder Increases


("Isolated system")
Disorder Increases

The decrease in disorder of the open system's more than balanced by the increase in disorder in the surroundings, so that the disorder in the whole universe always increases, e.g. when the saltwater cools, it heats up the air around it, which gives an increase in disorder in the air molecules. Therefore, says the evolutionist, you can have a local decrease in disorder (e.g., on the earth) balanced by an increase in disorder elsewhere, without violating the Second Law. So far, he is right, (if we ignore the fact that the chaos to cosmos notion is invalid when we consider the whole universe) except that even a local increase in order will not happen unless we have special conditions. Order, complexity and information will never arise spontaneously without a mechanism or motor.

Take Example No. 1. The raw energy pouring from the sun onto the seed will produce disorder, not order, unless the seed has the highly complex photosynthetic mechanism and the direction of the genetic code. A seed growing into a plant is not analogous to the presumed evolutionary process in any case, since it involves an 'unfolding' of information which is already there in the genetic 'blueprint'. Evolution requires information and complexity to arise and keep increasing over millions of years.

In Example No. 2 we also have an open system and available energy, but again we have an energy conversion mechanism, and coded information giving direction to the process. We see that it takes machines to make machines?it takes ordered systems to produce ordered systems. In living things, the information necessary to overcome the effects of the Second Law is passed on from generation to generation. This information 'rides on' the chemistry of the cell, just as the information in this article 'rides on' the ink and paper, but transcends it. The information in the DNA code and this page both depend on the sequence, or specific order of the constituents. The Second Law tells us that this can be copied many times, e.g., in a photocopier, but information will never spontaneously be added to it?rather it will tend to be lost.

On the "primitive earth" there could have been no machines or ordered systems?the first "primitive cell" could not arise without these special conditions, as we have seen.

Example No. 3 (crystals) is often cited, but has no relevance to the problem. This is because biological growth processes involve complexity, whereas crystal growth involves regularity. If you break up a large salt crystal, you get a lot of smaller salt crystals. If you break up a molecule of a biological protein, e.g. insulin, into smaller pieces, it is no longer insulin since the information it carries in its specific sequence of components is lost. A crystal of ice, for example, carries no more information than a single water molecule. The formation of a crystal involves molecules assuming a rigidly predetermined pattern?there is no growth in information or complexity, and again there is a pre-existing "code".

For the sake of further discussion, let's allow the first cell to somehow form in violation of these facts. Obviously, until you have something living and reproducing, mutation and selection are not involved. Could mutation and selection act as the necessary mechanism/code to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law? Mutation is a random change in a pre-existing code. It is not, therefore, a code or a mechanism as such. Selection is merely a commonsense occurrence?the elimination of the unfit. It cannot be either a code or an ordering mechanism in itself. What about both together? The evolutionist still has one counter-argument left, providing we ignore the impossibility of getting to the primitive earth and the first cell. The minute random fluctuations in order represented by genetic mutation are "fixed" and given a certain direction by natural selection, he claims. Thus, the two acting in concert act as a mechanism; the analogy is occasionally given of a jack, where the handle moves up and down, and natural selection is represented by the ratchet, "locking in" those motions which are in the right direction. Dr Harold Armstrong, a physicist and editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, correctly points out that this superficially attractive analogy is not appropriate, since the handle movements are not truly random, but directional?i.e., up and down. A closer analogy, he claims, would be as follows:

The random motion of electrons in the resistor A at a particular room temperature would cause some to flow in the direction of the arrow. The rectifier B would only allow those in one direction to pass, and thus a current could flow, driving electric motor C which could perform useful work. It sounds good, but it won't work. This machine would be continually extracting heat from the environment to perform work, and one of the consequences of the Second Law is that this can't happen. This example deserves further consideration by creationists?a detailed analysis, considering e.g. fluctuations in order in the rectifier itself and applying these to the biological situation may be fruitful.

A further point is that this classic "small fluctuations" argument of micromutation is in serious trouble on other grounds (the absence of transitional forms, the difficulty accounting for the "usefulness" of proposed transitional stages, and the small amount of genetic "load" in living things) which are forcing a number of leaders in evolutionary thought back to "macromutations" (sudden leaps or "saltations"?e.g. a non-flying creature becomes a flying one in one single mutation). Yet to get out of one set of difficulties, they must propose that a random change has given rise to a significant increase in order and information?the Second Law says that this will not happen without a mechanism which in this case is certainly lacking.

In conclusion
1. The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme. (see part 1)

  1. No biological order can arise without pre-existing coded mechanisms?the formation of the first cell from naturalistic processes is a thermodynamic impossibility.

  2. After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law in an open system.

Information and order, form, body, arrangement and complexity do not arise spontaneously, but are spontaneously and naturally lost.
Centuries before these scientific principles were formulated, God revealed in the Bible that He created the universe as a functioning whole (i.e. with its order and complexity built-in) and that it is now running down. (Hebrews 1:10?12, quoting Psalm 102, Isaiah 51:6, Romans 8:19?22) This basic Law of matter/energy is in perfect harmony with Scripture, but contradicts the total concept of evolution.


This is a never ending argument. Frankly i am a believer in the Grand Design. This makes me look hokey and not with the time s to most evolutionists, as it's proof that i do not accept the scientific model and what science has to offer. On the contrary i do. You see the difference for me is very simple. God created us in the image of him/herself. This is a simple statement, but we must understand the time it was stated in and the message behind it. Our curosity, scientific pursuits, evolution (dare i say) is all part of our design. We are meant to keep at solving this puzzle that is life, wherever the evidence may lead.

I believe that any well designed system will have adaptibility built in as a survival mechanism to give it plasticity to changing enviroments, in other words micro evolution. Now can these small micro evolutionary states add up over time and cause macro evolution? Well that's the debate isn't it? I would tend to say yes and no but lean more towards no for the very reason that evolution is still a working theory with plenty of missing pieces. As science moves forward as it's ment sp? to do we'll discover the answer or come up with more questions and still be confused. In the mean time i am a believer in God and also very scientific at heart. I just don't see how over time the two mindsets became so mutually exclusive of one another, no reason for it. Evolution definitely happened, the only question is to what degree did it happen to.

The interesting thing about evolution for me is it's mechanism. It would make sense for this mechanism to be a mechanism within a mechanism that can sense, diagnose, and decide on an adaptation that is completly out of the organisms controll or even awareness. It must follow a logical sequence of steps, as i do not believe that anything is truly random. Now that is a fascinating prospect.

In the end i think both parties should loosen up. The purely scientific minds have nothing to loose by accpting a little faith, it certainly won't dampen thir research and in fact might make it more interesting. The creationists need to loosen up a little, get with the times and understand that even if evolution will pan out it does not disprove God in any way. If the meachanism of evolution is real and proven, then the next question will be, How, Why and When did the "mechanism" itself come to be. What did "it" evolve from? And so a new era of science will be born with the same debate raging.

In a way i think it's funny how this happens. The more we know, the more we don't know. For every answer, we find more questions and never really find to our satisfaction what it is we're seeking. I think that, that is part of the grand design. It will never end. The Religious texts written thousands of years ago seem now to have been written in a way so that they can't be proven or disproven but still can apply to and influence our lives. That is genuis within itself. So let's all hold hands and learn from one another and move forward together as allies in science and spiritual beliefs. One can not live without the other.

Above all else follow the truth with the realization that sometimes the truth that's so very real in front of you today turns into a wrong turn and a fallacy the next day, that's evolution of the mind and discovery or rolling with the punches as some say.

God Bless all you hard working Scientists and Religious followers.


Oops. This is why they say a little knowledge is dangerous. Sorry, but you need to go back to school. In thermodynamiics alone, Entropy is also intertwined with Enthalpy... it is NOT a stand-alone property. You can easily decrease the entropy of any natural system given a number of different circumstances. It happens in chemistry all the time.

Oh really?

The classic Miller-Urey experiment... good ol' 1953. We've found out quite a bit since then, you know. And damn it all it sure put a few holes in your entropy problem, too. I suppose that God reached into those flasks and made all those organic molecules, right? And that was only in a week.


And yet, despite your muddled understanding of science, here you are, typing away at your computer. You are living proof that it works.

And the Bible is wrong. God did not magically create everything all at once. And BTW, that wasn't God who said all that, it was a guy somewhere that wrote an oral tradition down.




Oops I meant "decrease the entropy of any natural OPEN system" up above. Don't jump my shizzle you chem dorks out there!! :slight_smile:


Tuffloud has been adopted by a cult of insane religious freaks!

Anyway, it's great that you think you know everything, when you don't even understand what it is you are arguing against, but you are wasting your time.

Go back to your brainwashed crappy Internet sites that offer stupid twisted logic claiming creationism is provable in some way.

You have your faith. Good for you. Now go be happy and stop torturing everyone with your psychotic babble.


I don't understand the point of this thread. Belief in God is a choice. It is perfectly balanced in our scheme of reality because there is no proof either way. That means it comes down to a choice of where to place your faith...in big bangs and simple evolution or creationism and belief in God. To me, this is the point. It isn't right to attempt to force anyone to believe as you do. The attempt alone places you outside of what is believed to be intended if you are believer in God.


You want the "missing link" of evolution? Here ya go.....


Well tuffloud, there?s your problem.

You don?t accept the theory of evolution which tries to explain the emergence of complex information patterns out of less complex ones (the digital information stored in DNA).

Then you introduce your deus-ex-machina (literally!), an all-knowing , all-powerfull not-to-be-questioned entity you call God that simply designed this huge databanks.

But you have to realize that now your back to square one, because instead of having to explain something simple like a frog or a tree, now you have to come up wih a theory how a God came to be, no less.

This is were you leave the ground of scientific reasoning, because you simply refuse to give a reason for your Gods existence. How did HE evolve?

There are other people out there that run into the same problem, believing that aliens planted life on earth. They also very rarely have an answer where that aliens came from and how they developed.

The alien/god(s) creationist answers are pseudo-answers, they don?t explain anything they are just pacifiers for people that believe that the buck has to stop somewhere, and that everythings fine if there?s a REASON to everything.


Leaving tuffloud's argument out of this, those who think about this beyond trying to prove the existance of God wrong believe that if our concept of time and space is only relevant to us as simpler life forms, that a being outside of this concept would need no beginning, and thusly, no evolution.


Evolution is a scientific theory. Keep teaching it as a theory until something better comes along.

Creationism is a religous belief. Keep it out of science class.

Don't try to mix religion and science. It doesn't work.

Don't belittle other peoples faith because they can't prove it. It is called faith for a reason.

Don't preach at people that don't want to hear it.


Professor X,

such beings may or may not exist, but science, so far, is about understanding the laws of this universe and drawing some supernatural beings/phenomena out of the hat whenever there are problems to solve doesn?t exactly help.

Besides I never understood why people would make their own god so incredibly small. First the earth had to be the center of the universe, then our sun had to play that role, now the theory of evolution is nonsense.... Why?

If He is all-powerful, all-knowing and works in misterious ways, who is anyone to say that He may not choose evolution as His vehicle of creation?

It blows my mind that people can be deeply religious but at the same time drag their own god down to them, until He is nothing more than a blueprint of their own prejudices plus some supernatural powers.