PDA

View Full Version : What is the best evidence for Creationism?



CWH
06-29-2012, 03:14 AM
The top best evidences for creation, which is the best?

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

1. The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life's DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
Key references: Genetic Entropy (Sanford), In the Beginning was Information (Gitt).

2. Formation of Life Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Key reference: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

3. Design of Living Things Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" - no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.
Key reference: The three-part video series Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution describes many more examples like that of the Bombardier Beetle

4. Irreducible Complexity The idea that "nothing works until everything works." The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
Key reference: Darwin's Black Box (Behe)

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.
Key reference: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (answersingenesis.org)

6. Existence of the Universe By definition, something must be eternal (as we have "something" today and something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question "who created God" is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life Dozens of parameters are "just right" for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean's water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth's circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal "solvent" known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
Key reference: The Privileged Planet (Gonzalez/Richards)

8. Fine-tuning of Physics The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife's edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.
The "multiverse" idea that there may be many universes and ours "just happened" to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask "what was the cause of all these universes?"

Key reference: Hugh Ross lists about 100 parameters on the Reasons To Believe web site. See also Design and the Anthropic Principle

9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don't change much over time ("stasis"). The "Cambrian Explosion" in the "primordial strata" documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a "half-scale/half-wing". A reptile breathes using an "in and out" lung (like humans have), but a bird has a "flow-through" lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation "according to its kind", and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the "geologic column" and giving the appearance of a "Cambrian Explosion". Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from "simpler" forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
Key reference: Fossils Q&A (answersingenesis.org)

10. Human Consciousness A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.
Key reference: The Origin of the Brain and Mind, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004

11. Human Language Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
Key reference: The Mystery of Human Language (Morris, icr.org)

12. Sexual Reproduction Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

13. The Bible's Witness The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

Thank God for His Creations. :pray:

jce
06-29-2012, 05:22 AM
The top best evidences for creation, which is the best?

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

1. The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life's DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
Key references: Genetic Entropy (Sanford), In the Beginning was Information (Gitt).

2. Formation of Life Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Key reference: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

3. Design of Living Things Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" - no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.
Key reference: The three-part video series Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution describes many more examples like that of the Bombardier Beetle

4. Irreducible Complexity The idea that "nothing works until everything works." The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
Key reference: Darwin's Black Box (Behe)

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.
Key reference: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (answersingenesis.org)

6. Existence of the Universe By definition, something must be eternal (as we have "something" today and something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question "who created God" is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life Dozens of parameters are "just right" for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean's water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth's circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal "solvent" known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
Key reference: The Privileged Planet (Gonzalez/Richards)

8. Fine-tuning of Physics The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife's edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.
The "multiverse" idea that there may be many universes and ours "just happened" to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask "what was the cause of all these universes?"

Key reference: Hugh Ross lists about 100 parameters on the Reasons To Believe web site. See also Design and the Anthropic Principle

9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don't change much over time ("stasis"). The "Cambrian Explosion" in the "primordial strata" documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a "half-scale/half-wing". A reptile breathes using an "in and out" lung (like humans have), but a bird has a "flow-through" lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation "according to its kind", and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the "geologic column" and giving the appearance of a "Cambrian Explosion". Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from "simpler" forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
Key reference: Fossils Q&A (answersingenesis.org)

10. Human Consciousness A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.
Key reference: The Origin of the Brain and Mind, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004

11. Human Language Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
Key reference: The Mystery of Human Language (Morris, icr.org)

12. Sexual Reproduction Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

13. The Bible's Witness The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

Thank God for His Creations. :pray:

Great Thread Cheow and an excellent start.

May God continue to Bless you.

John

Rose
06-29-2012, 09:11 AM
Watch this video, then decide if you still think creationism is a better choice than evolution...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=iv&lr=1&user=FishHeadSalad&src_vi d=pDFAmc3xHoE&annotation_id=annotation_257951

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
06-29-2012, 09:51 AM
Watch this video, then decide if you still think creationism is a better choice than evolution...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=iv&lr=1&user=FishHeadSalad&src_vi d=pDFAmc3xHoE&annotation_id=annotation_257951

Rose
An absolutely devastating refutation of an incoherent dogma.

jce
06-29-2012, 09:51 AM
Watch this video, then decide if you still think creationism is a better choice than evolution...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=iv&lr=1&user=FishHeadSalad&src_vi d=pDFAmc3xHoE&annotation_id=annotation_257951

Rose

Hi Rose

Read these quotes and then ask yourself if any of these people think there is a creator behind creation:

Francis Collins (Head of the Human Genome Project) ""I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire the moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing. I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God. He had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."

Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge said, “there are so many wonderful details which, if they were changed only slightly, would make it impossible for us to be here, that one just has to feel, somehow, that there is a design in the universe and, therefore, a designer to have worked it out so magnificently.”

The famous astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, acknowledged that "the choice is between “deliberate design” and “a monstrous sequence of accidents.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wrote, “The very fact that the universe is creative and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness … is for me powerful evidence that there is ‘something going on’ behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Biochemist Michael Behe, wrote that four decades of intensive research into life at the molecular level has “sounded a loud, piercing cry for intelligent design” (Darwin’s Black Box).

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms. DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

Rose
06-29-2012, 10:01 AM
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46730#post46730)
Watch this video, then decide if you still think creationism is a better choice than evolution...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=iv&lr=1&user=FishHeadSalad&src_vi d=pDFAmc3xHoE&annotation_id=annotation_257951

Rose

An absolutely devastating refutation of an incoherent dogma.

So it seems creating deformed babies is evidence for the biblegod as Creator...

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
06-29-2012, 10:12 AM
Hi Rose

Read these quotes and then ask yourself if any of these people think there is a creator behind creation:

Francis Collins (Head of the Human Genome Project) ""I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire the moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing. I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God. He had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."

Hey there John,

Thank you for the example of a prominent evangelic Christian who understands that evolution is a fact. But I don't understand why you posted this since it only shows that evolution and Theism are not necessarily contradictory. It doesn't address any of the points made in the video.

I would be VERY INTERESTED if you would try to tackle the issues raised in the video.



Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge said, “there are so many wonderful details which, if they were changed only slightly, would make it impossible for us to be here, that one just has to feel, somehow, that there is a design in the universe and, therefore, a designer to have worked it out so magnificently.”

The famous astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, acknowledged that "the choice is between “deliberate design” and “a monstrous sequence of accidents.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wrote, “The very fact that the universe is creative and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness … is for me powerful evidence that there is ‘something going on’ behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Again, those quotes are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I've admitted many times that there could be a god. But this is only a necessary condition for theistic religions like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism to be true. It is not a sufficient condition to prove the truth of any of those religions.



Biochemist Michael Behe, wrote that four decades of intensive research into life at the molecular level has “sounded a loud, piercing cry for intelligent design” (Darwin’s Black Box).

Again, it is totally irrelevant for the questions at hand. I've constantly reiterated that there could be a god. This has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity and it certainly does not contradict the theory of evolution, unless, of course, you think that God was directly creating each organism. But that would be contrary to much evidence, so it is not a viable theory.



George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

etc.,
etc.,
etc.,


All those quotes are totally irrelevant to the video. I don't understand why you posted them. At best, they show that there might be a "mind" or a "god" underlying reality. But that idea is consistent with any theistic religion and even Hinduism which says the same thing.

Like I said, I would be VERY INTERESTED if you would try to tackle the issues raised in the video.

All the best to you my friend,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
06-29-2012, 10:14 AM
So it seems creating deformed babies is evidence for the biblegod as Creator...

Rose
There's never been a painting without a painter. God deliberately designed the malformed babies for his pleasure and his glory.

Rose
06-29-2012, 12:46 PM
Hi Rose

Read these quotes and then ask yourself if any of these people think there is a creator behind creation:

Francis Collins (Head of the Human Genome Project) ""I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire the moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing. I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God. He had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."

Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge said, “there are so many wonderful details which, if they were changed only slightly, would make it impossible for us to be here, that one just has to feel, somehow, that there is a design in the universe and, therefore, a designer to have worked it out so magnificently.”

The famous astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, acknowledged that "the choice is between “deliberate design” and “a monstrous sequence of accidents.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wrote, “The very fact that the universe is creative and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness … is for me powerful evidence that there is ‘something going on’ behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Biochemist Michael Behe, wrote that four decades of intensive research into life at the molecular level has “sounded a loud, piercing cry for intelligent design” (Darwin’s Black Box).

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms. DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

Hi John,

With the exception of two people on your list (Francis Collins and Frank Tipler who are Christians), everyone points to the idea of the universe being created by a designer that falls under the very broad category of a generic supreme being. No one except those two speak of the biblegod as being the creator, and that my friend is entirely my point. I do not know if the universe has a designer or not - in many ways it seems so - but the one thing I do know is that if there is a designer it most certainly is not the biblegod, Yahweh.

All the best,
Rose

jce
06-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Hi John,

With the exception of two people on your list (Francis Collins and Frank Tipler who are Christians), everyone points to the idea of the universe being created by a designer that falls under the very broad category of a generic supreme being. No one except those two speak of the biblegod as being the creator, and that my friend is entirely my point. I do not know if the universe has a designer or not - in many ways it seems so - but the one thing I do know is that if there is a designer it most certainly is not the biblegod, Yahweh.

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

I respect your opinion and the path you have chosen. God has apparently chosen for myself, David, Cheow, Twospirits, Duxrow and many others in this forum, a different direction, as He has convinced us and many millions of others beyond all doubt, through His Spirit and His Word, the reality of His Being and the reliability of His Word.

Of a truth, the opinions of the unregenerate have no persuasive power over God's chosen, and that is an undeniable certainty.

The fortification of such faith in God's Word is illustrated in the following prophetic passages:

1 Corinthians 2:6-16 (ESV)

6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.[d]

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.


John 10:26-28 (KJV)

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.


These are simply two of many prophetic writings that predict the reactions of the unregenerate who are not even aware that they are the subject of the context.

I will assume that you are at peace with your unbelief as I and others are in the Biblical Faith which has been entrusted to us. I view it as a "good thing" that we can dialog with each other with mutual respect.

May the Light of God's Grace be upon you Rose.

Your friend sincerely.

John

Richard Amiel McGough
06-29-2012, 03:49 PM
Hi Rose,

I respect your opinion and the path you have chosen. God has apparently chosen for myself, David, Cheow, Twospirits, Duxrow and many others in this forum, a different direction, as He has convinced us and many millions of others beyond all doubt, through His Spirit and His Word, the reality of His Being and the reliability of His Word.

Of a truth, the opinions of the unregenerate have no persuasive power over God's chosen, and that is an undeniable certainty.

The fortification of such faith in God's Word is illustrated in the following prophetic passages:

Hey there John, :yo:

That's a fascinating non-response to Rose's post. Do you not realize that you didn't respond to anything she actually wrote?

Your appeal to the concept of the "unregenerate" has some rather ominous implications. How do you know that you are regenerate? If we had met five years ago, we would have enjoyed rich Christian fellowship filled with sincere prayer, praise, and Bible study. Rose was a convinced Christian for 30 years, and I for about 15. My testimony was indistinguishable from that of the most devout Christian. So is there any meaning to your argument? If no one can know if they are "regenerate" or not, upon what do you base your assertions? The concept of "regeneration" seems to be an empty concept with no practical meaning at all.

Your assertion that it is "God" who has "chosen" who believes and who does not means that no one has any say in the matter, and so there is nothing anyone can do to become a believer even if they wanted to. Maybe that's what happened to me. Maybe I was just enamored by Christianity and thought it was true, but God had not chosen to save me. You sound like a Calvinist. Would you describe yourself as such?

Your assertion that "the opinions of the unregenerate have no persuasive power over God's chosen" is indistinguishable from the claims of any member of any dogmatic religion. Does this not concern you? Don't you think you should have a better foundation than Islam and Mormonism? They would say the same things. And besides, we are not talking about "opinions" but rather logic, facts, and reality. That's the point of these discussions. I am not trying to persuade you to agree with my opinions. I am trying to see if we can agree about the facts of reality. I've been looking for the foundation of your beliefs, but what I am finding is mere dogmatic assertion that is indistinguishable from what any believer in any religion could say.



These are simply two of many prophetic writings that predict the reactions of the unregenerate who are not even aware that they are the subject of the context.

Verses like those are meant only for believers. Why shove them in the face of unbelievers when you know that they are impossible to receive?



I will assume that you are at peace with your unbelief as I and others are in the Biblical Faith which has been entrusted to us. I view it as a "good thing" that we can dialog with each other with mutual respect.

May the Light of God's Grace be upon you Rose.

Your friend sincerely.

John
I think it is a VERY GOOD THING that we can dialog with each other with mutual respect!

Thank you for your perseverance.

Great chatting with you my friend,

Richard

PS: Do you think there is any chance you will answer post 71 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3175-What-is-the-best-evidence-for-Christianity&p=46572#post46572) in that other thread? I would really appreciate that.

CWH
06-29-2012, 04:42 PM
So it seems creating deformed babies is evidence for the biblegod as Creator...

Rose

No, according to Natural Selection, deformation is part of the natural process in which new species were formed. Deformation is part of the process in which uniqueness of the species develops over time and gradually became a new species.

In the gospel of John, Jesus said that a man born blind is so that the glory of God can be manifested on him. Understand what Jesus is saying. What he seems tobe saying that deformation and debilitating diseases is an opportunity for people to help them thus showing the love for our neigbor (our neighbor means someone in need) by looking for a cure or treatment or offering other help. Curing the sick was what Jesus did and that is considered the works of God.

John 9 1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

God Blessed. :pray:

jce
06-29-2012, 10:30 PM
Hey there John, :yo:

That's a fascinating non-response to Rose's post. Do you not realize that you didn't respond to anything she actually wrote?

Your appeal to the concept of the "unregenerate" has some rather ominous implications. How do you know that you are regenerate? If we had met five years ago, we would have enjoyed rich Christian fellowship filled with sincere prayer, praise, and Bible study. Rose was a convinced Christian for 30 years, and I for about 15. My testimony was indistinguishable from that of the most devout Christian. So is there any meaning to your argument? If no one can know if they are "regenerate" or not, upon what do you base your assertions? The concept of "regeneration" seems to be an empty concept with no practical meaning at all.

I think it is a VERY GOOD THING that we can dialog with each other with mutual respect!

Thank you for your perseverance.

Great chatting with you my friend,

Richard.

Hi Richard

I always appreciate your intellectual comments.:yo:

Regarding regeneration, it is evidence of the birth of the new nature as distinguished from the old nature, or the life of the flesh. For me, it occurred one April evening in 1973. It took a while to understand what took place, but over time, based on my experiences and study of the Word, it became apparent that there were two distinct voices now competing for my volition, the old nature, which is my old guy, and the new guy with new desires. These two are compete with each other pulling me in different directions. This division remains to this day, nearly 40 years after the fact.

The verses I referenced we're very significant to me as it soon became obvious that most of my old buddy's couldn't grasp what I was trying to tell them about my exciting discoveries in the Bible, in fact, it was worse than that, they simply had no interest in the things I wanted to talk about. I witnessed to them about my experience and they listened, but, except for only a couple of them who did come to Christ, the others went their way and we eventually fell out of touch. Prior to my conversion, we did many things together including weekly poker games and golf outings.

When I speak of God's chosen, it sounds exclusive, but not on my part because I believe that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, but have learned to qualify that because of Jesus statement that no one can come to Him unless that individual is drawn by Him. Also, in John's Gospel, It states that those who are born again are not born by their own will nor the will of any man, but by the will of God. We do have a promise from God that if we ask Him for something in accordance with His will, He will grant that petition, which I believe opens the door of salvation to others by praying for them. This has been confirmed many times in my prayer life. God answers prayers, unlike that of praying to a milk jug. Why would anyone do that when they could address their prayer to the Maker of the Universe. Is anything to hard for Him?

Richard, I don't know your situation and what the process was of your falling away, but it has happened to others an we also have a Scriptural example in the person of Demas who abandoned Paul and his faith for the love of the present world.

The Good News for anyone who has fallen away and for those unregenerate, is that God promises to honor His Word when He states that "whoever comes to me I will not cast out". We live in the Day of Grace so now is the acceptable time to call upon the Name of the Lord to be saved from the wrath to come. I assume that this refers to the Wrath of God. I don't understand what is being conveyed in that phrase, but I think it is a sorry wager to put it to the test.

Also, regarding your concern about post 71, I have already devoted much time to illustrate the distinction between the Gospel of Joseph Smith and the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I still hold that they are comparable only in one respect, they both built on the Scriptures, but to imply any similarities beyond that is in one word, absurd.

I would love to have you as my Brother in Christ and I have prayed to that end.

Your friend,

John

Twospirits
06-30-2012, 09:51 AM
CWH wrote,

No, according to Natural Selection, deformation is part of the natural process in which new species were formed. Deformation is part of the process in which uniqueness of the species develops over time and gradually became a new species.

Correct Cheow, this is what Evolutionists claim is a “fact.”

While evolutionists can in no way bring any explanation to the subject of how DNA originated, there is yet another point where they reach an impasse. DNA (code) contains the complete information needed to make up the human body. How come fish, reptiles, birds, human beings etc. have come to possess different DNAs and different types of information?

Well Evolutionists answer that question by saying that the body of information in DNA developed and diversified over great lengths of time by means of mutations and natural selection (from micro to macro evolution). Mutations are changes which take place in DNA as a result of radiation or chemical action. Sometimes radioactive radiation happens to fall on a DNA chain and destroys or displaces several base pairs therein. According to evolutionists, living things have reached their present perfect state as a result of the diversification of a single DNA cell due to these mutations i.e., accidents.

Yet almost all mutations are harmful. Even if a good mutation does occur for every good one there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect over time being harmful, if not lethal, to the species as a whole. Yet Evolutionists claim that with enough time and with enough mutations entirely new genes for new traits would be produced which would be preserved by natural selection and which would lead to the (macro) evolution of new biological kinds (fish, reptiles, birds, human beings). Yet there is no evidence that this can happen from accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code, anymore than it's possible to change a romance novel into a book on astronomy by accidentally changing the sequence of the letters.

At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing traits, but not entirely new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop!

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough
12-04-2012, 03:39 PM
Hey there John,

I would be VERY INTERESTED if you would try to tackle the issues raised in the video.

...

Like I said, I would be VERY INTERESTED if you would try to tackle the issues raised in the video.

All the best to you my friend,

Richard

I find it quite telling that no Christian can address the facts presented in this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos

Roberto
12-29-2012, 09:54 AM
I find it quite telling that no Christian can address the facts presented in this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos



What facts is represented here? That you think you have a bigger heart than God. The only fact is, you don't.
In the video it said that Satan can under God's authority make deformity, and then it's God's fault. Satan uses humans for his work.
Many deformaties comes from pollution. If you are showering in toxic waiste, you will probably produce deformed offspring.
This video just show the minds of people finding excuses to not worship God as the creator. I see it all the time in atheists, they have so many excuses for not worshipping God, even if the best evidence is themselves, they point to other peoples problems.

Well, newsflash, God is God anyhow you try to degrade Him, ad in the bible God says to Adam, the ground is cursed for your sake. it is for our humanities good that the ground is not a steady place.
And why did'nt Adam die when he ate of the tree, when God said that on the day Adam eats it, he will sureley die?
It means Adams Spirit died, it was as good as dead to God, but Adam lived through his soul and body.
Your soul is egosentric, thats why you dont see God Richard.
Thats why it says in hebrews 4,12 that the Word of God shall divide soul and spirit, because we don't know anymore what is soul and what is spirit.
You are mind-focused because you are soulish.

Back to good evidence for creationism, YEC as i believe.
In the labratories, they can NOT prove millions of years formed the coal and oil. Of course not, it will take millions of years to prove that.
But in the labratories they CAN show that coal and oil can be made in matter of short time, it is a proven fact, and it supports YEC.
They always find Carbon 14 in Coal and Oil, and they always say it must be contaminated, every time is that excuse used, hey what about YEC? It's so outside the evolutionnary thinking of men that it will never be accepted even if the evidence speaks of the opposite all the time.
Even soft tissue in ALOT of dinosaur bones can be a fact for a young earth, but nooooo, it must be that soft tissue has an amazingley long life span.

And for all the fossils found and still to be found, something catastrophic needs to happen for fossilising to happen , well, the global flood maybe? That global flood putting the animals with highest density lowest in the "geologic collum" right above the creatures living in the sea, like clams and shells, and bird then with the lowest density is put highest. But this "fossil record" is showing no forms of "missing link". Thats why it all happened at one time, and not gradually over millions of years in local catastrophic floods here and there in a world where everything evolved from a primordial soup that will allow different forms of life to happen even if in the labratories the always see, that lifeforms, reject other lifeforms so there will never be a succsfull mutation, that increases life, it's only a decreasing lifeform that comes out of mutation.(excuse my bad english, it's all good in my other language thats in my thinking) I think you understand. So it is a fact in the labraories that a dinosaur cannot become a bird eventually.

Happy new year in advance, i think 2013 will be a year, unweiling great secrets, that gives a more fully understanding to meaning of life.

L67
12-31-2012, 08:56 PM
What facts is represented here? That you think you have a bigger heart than God. The only fact is, you don't.
In the video it said that Satan can under God's authority make deformity, and then it's God's fault. Satan uses humans for his work.
Many deformaties comes from pollution. If you are showering in toxic waiste, you will probably produce deformed offspring.
This video just show the minds of people finding excuses to not worship God as the creator. I see it all the time in atheists, they have so many excuses for not worshipping God, even if the best evidence is themselves, they point to other peoples problems.


You didn't address one thing in this video. I'm not surprised. If God created everything including satan, then God is ultimately responsible for every abomination that has ever taken place or will take place. No amount of word twisting on your part will change that.


Well, newsflash, God is God anyhow you try to degrade Him, ad in the bible God says to Adam, the ground is cursed for your sake. it is for our humanities good that the ground is not a steady place.
And why did'nt Adam die when he ate of the tree, when God said that on the day Adam eats it, he will sureley die?
It means Adams Spirit died, it was as good as dead to God, but Adam lived through his soul and body.
Your soul is egosentric, thats why you dont see God Richard.
Thats why it says in hebrews 4,12 that the Word of God shall divide soul and spirit, because we don't know anymore what is soul and what is spirit.
You are mind-focused because you are soulish.

Those are your interpretations of a contradictory book. There's a thousand other interpretations like yours that mean nothing. You can't even prove if the Bible is Gods word. We know for a fact it's mans word. There is ZERO evidence of it being divinely inspired. Heck the first two chapters of Genesis can't even agree on the order of the creation events. It's useless to quote verses that mean nothing. Because while you think you are dealing with Gods word, you have no way of knowing.


Back to good evidence for creationism, YEC as i believe.
In the labratories, they can NOT prove millions of years formed the coal and oil. Of course not, it will take millions of years to prove that.
But in the labratories they CAN show that coal and oil can be made in matter of short time, it is a proven fact, and it supports YEC.
They always find Carbon 14 in Coal and Oil, and they always say it must be contaminated, every time is that excuse used, hey what about YEC? It's so outside the evolutionnary thinking of men that it will never be accepted even if the evidence speaks of the opposite all the time.
Even soft tissue in ALOT of dinosaur bones can be a fact for a young earth, but nooooo, it must be that soft tissue has an amazingley long life span.

Except for one problem. Yec is bogus. You are regurgitating the teachings of creationist who bend the truth to fit their beliefs. Specifically the argument you are presenting are from losers like Kent Hovind. If you are interested in the actual TRUTH read this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html


And for all the fossils found and still to be found, something catastrophic needs to happen for fossilising to happen , well, the global flood maybe? That global flood putting the animals with highest density lowest in the "geologic collum" right above the creatures living in the sea, like clams and shells, and bird then with the lowest density is put highest. But this "fossil record" is showing no forms of "missing link". Thats why it all happened at one time, and not gradually over millions of years in local catastrophic floods here and there in a world where everything evolved from a primordial soup that will allow different forms of life to happen even if in the labratories the always see, that lifeforms, reject other lifeforms so there will never be a succsfull mutation, that increases life, it's only a decreasing lifeform that comes out of mutation.(excuse my bad english, it's all good in my other language thats in my thinking) I think you understand. So it is a fact in the labraories that a dinosaur cannot become a bird eventually.

The flood is a myth. I suggest you not get your information from creationists who don't know what they are taking about. Like Kent Hovind. Read this link if you want to see the HUGE contradicting holes in your argument for a global flood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

David M
01-01-2013, 12:22 PM
I could say a lot against what the author of the video is saying. Quotes are being used without fully understanding or considering what else those verses are saying. I do not agree with evangelical speakers who have a grain of truth and yet say silly things. Saying God allowed Satan and his minions to manipulate cells etc has no Biblical basis. Much of the argument presented does not have a biblial basis.


First of all, I do not accept Satan as a fallen Angel of God or a Spirit being exists. That removes the argument that Satan could have created anything. God is the creator of all things means that in this closed universe God has created all the atoms. God might yet silently create atoms and molecules in the performance of a miracle or God is transferring matter from one place to another. If we think that God is the Creator of all at the time of Genesis, this is not saying God creates every baby. The atoms/molecules/cells that are used to form a baby in the womb have already been made. Humans and animals and plants grow from atoms that have already been made.

God can make things from atoms already created. All man can do is make things from atoms/molecules that have already been created. Man creates nothing, he can only destroy. Man in an attempt to get to an understanding of how atoms are ,made cam only smash them apart. If a new atomic particle is found, man has not created it. Man has no control over the creation of a single atom; he cannot create an atom and to smash atoms has to use enormous amounts of power. Compare that to the silent miracles of producing bread out of thin air, raising the body of Lazarus that has already began to stink and decompose or how Jesus attached the ear of Malchuus that was cut off by Peter. Knowing the complexity of all matter whether it be bread or flesh and blood, God did this in silence and in an instant. Consider all those who were cured of their blindness or lameness or whatever disease and illness and infirmity they suffered, they were cured instantaneously.

As I write this, I am asking myself the question; of whom was God speaking when he said; I formed you. I have found the verse in Isaiah which says; (Isaiah 44:1) Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

This is evidently speaking about Jacob and the the patriarch of Israel. Jacob's name was changed to Israel (Genesis 32:48).Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: We might now ask the question what was the story behind Jacob's birth? As is recorded in Genesis 25:21 And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: That is significant because Rebekah was barren. Like God did with Sarah, God caused both Sarah and Rebekah to conceive. It is speculation as to how much involvement God had in manipulating events. Many things can be attributed to God which we can or cannot say God did unless we are specifically told. We do not know for example how much evil God created when he said (Isaiah 45:7); I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God can do all these things, but does God do it every day or does God only do these things at specific times in order to accomplish His purpose? Instead of bashing God, we should be looking for ways to understand the working of God. For a God that can create atoms and dna molecules and create all manner of life, nothing to us should appear impossible to God. How much control God excercises and how much God lets things ride with a hands off approach we cannot say. Mankind is at this time, ruling himself, but that is not always going to be the case as we are told. Unless the days of man's rule be shortened, not flesh will survive. That is the foreknowledge God has.

Just as God can read your mind and know what is in each cell of your mind, means that God knowing what the birth of Jacob and Esau would produce should not be surprising. That is why before Jacob and Esau were born, God knew what they were like. That was possibly determined at conception or God could look into the womb of Rebekah and see that Jacob was going to come out second clutching the heel of Esau. God knew and determined so that the elder would serve the younger and so it can go on. God did intervene in the lives of some people to bring about His purpose i fulfilling the promises to Abraham and God will continue to do so until His plan is completed. Even today, God is in control of the situation developing in the Middle East. There is nothing man can do that where God is concerned, God knows what the outcome will be, because God has the power to engineer it.


That said, it does not mean that God is interfering in the lives of every individual on the planet. In fact if we draw away from God, there is every indication God will draw away from us. Here is one example to keep in mind (Deuteronomy 30:17 ) But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, This message was directed at Israel, but this is the principle by which God works and so we are foolish if we ignore these lessons. This is why God has given us the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament to learn from. Unless you read the whole Bible and fit all these elements into place, so you will form an incorrect understanding of God. The more I keep reading God's word and looking at the stories in the old testament, the more that keeps coming out of them. If we do not look for truth in the pages of the Old Testament, we will never find the truth of God's word. The more we read, the more we find answers to questions of why things happened and why God allowed certain things to happen. If you are arguing from the point of having never read all of the Bible, how do you not know what you do not know? The Bible will provide the answers if we look for them. It is too easy for critics to bash the Bible and treat it with contempt when they have not read it or attempted to understand it. I respect anyone's opinion once they have, but then as I have come to learn, the Bible needs to be read many times before it is understood how it all frames together and that God's hand as author is there to be seen throughout.

I find it interesting that in this 21st century much of the understanding of the Bible is from the perspective of bronze age people that Rose and Richard keep referring to. Why is it when we know that demons in the Bible are explained as illnesses we understand because of the medical knowledge we have. Why are people still thinking in terms of mythical beings like the Devil and Satan which are personifications for what can be the workings of the mind. God's battle is with the mind of man, not with His Angels that do Hs will. The same battle went on in the mind of Jesus as iti does with us all. We are the devil, the devil resides in us all, the devil is that part of our mind that makes us go against God's instruction and makes us do what we want to do that is not in accordance with God's instruction. Understanding this is simple and yet we confound our understanding by clinging to explanations from the days in which the knowledge we have today was unknown.

The video is easily challenged and I have much more to say. To keep it short, God does not always intervene and mutations in birth will occur. Many changes have taken place (2 Samuel 21:20) And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. The first recorded mutation does not occur until the time of Samuel. Were there any mutations before the Flood? Probably not. The Flood and the major changes that took place could be the cause for mutations that occurred afterwards. We know that radiation can cause defects, radiation from the sun was probably increased due to atmospheric changes that took place. The fact that a rainbow had not been seen until after the Flood is indicative of change taking place.

I am not for science trying to explain miracles, yet I am for modern thinking being brought to understand God's word. God's word was written for all ages, it was not written specifically for the 21st century so we have to deal with it as it has been written. The Bible has been written in a way that gives hope to all generations and that hope I have because of the fulfillment of God's word I see happening now. There has to come a time when faith turns into sight and for those watching and waiting, one day Jesus will come and catch many unawares. To those who are not watching and waiting the coming of Christ can either come as great and fearful surprise or they might not even recognize it. Such is the disaster looming, many might not remain alive to witness the return of Jesus and will perish along with the billions that will have perished throughout the ages. That will sound gloomy to no-believers, but is of great comfort to those who know and can recognize God's hand at work.

God gave Adam and Eve warning. God has given adequate warnings to Israel, but they did not listen and take heed. God is giving warning to all generations and this generation is not excluded. I do not have to go around with a sandwich board shouting; "the end of the world is nigh" but in reality, that day is not far off. It might not be in my day, but as the increasing birth pangs indicate the imminent birth, so the pangs of the world will experience before the return of Christ. If we are not there yet and we see all that is happening in the world today. it begs the question; what will the world be like in another 10 or 20 years. Will man survive that long if left unchecked. I think the jury is still out on what might happen in the next few years, but there is every indication that God's word is still alive and active.


All the best to everyone for 2013

David

L67
01-01-2013, 05:38 PM
I could say a lot against what the author of the video is saying. Quotes are being used without fully understanding or considering what else those verses are saying. I do not agree with evangelical speakers who have a grain of truth and yet say silly things. Saying God allowed Satan and his minions to manipulate cells etc has no Biblical basis. Much of the argument presented does not have a biblial basis.


The video doesn't say God allowed Satan to manipulate cells. It merely presents it as a possibility. The whole point of the video is God created everything, therefore he is responsible for good and bad creations.



First of all, I do not accept Satan as a fallen Angel of God or a Spirit being exists. That removes the argument that Satan could have created anything. God is the creator of all things means that in this closed universe God has created all the atoms. God might yet silently create atoms and molecules in the performance of a miracle or God is transferring matter from one place to another. If we think that God is the Creator of all at the time of Genesis, this is not saying God creates every baby. The atoms/molecules/cells that are used to form a baby in the womb have already been made. Humans and animals and plants grow from atoms that have already been made.

Yes, God is the creator of everything. Therefore he is responsible for everything that is born.


God can make things from atoms already created. All man can do is make things from atoms/molecules that have already been created. Man creates nothing, he can only destroy. Man in an attempt to get to an understanding of how atoms are ,made cam only smash them apart. If a new atomic particle is found, man has not created it. Man has no control over the creation of a single atom; he cannot create an atom and to smash atoms has to use enormous amounts of power. Compare that to the silent miracles of producing bread out of thin air, raising the body of Lazarus that has already began to stink and decompose or how Jesus attached the ear of Malchuus that was cut off by Peter. Knowing the complexity of all matter whether it be bread or flesh and blood, God did this in silence and in an instant. Consider all those who were cured of their blindness or lameness or whatever disease and illness and infirmity they suffered, they were cured instantaneously.

Why would you even reference any miracles? There is no proof or even any way to prove such things ever happened.





God can do all these things, but does God do it every day or does God only do these things at specific times in order to accomplish His purpose? Instead of bashing God, we should be looking for ways to understand the working of God. For a God that can create atoms and dna molecules and create all manner of life, nothing to us should appear impossible to God. How much control God excercises and how much God lets things ride with a hands off approach we cannot say. Mankind is at this time, ruling himself, but that is not always going to be the case as we are told. Unless the days of man's rule be shortened, not flesh will survive. That is the foreknowledge God has.

David how can you say such silly stuff? Just how are we to understand the working of God? The Bible? No. Tell me how this is possible. It's obvious to anyone without a religious belief that God has a total hands off approach.


Just as God can read your mind and know what is in each cell of your mind, means that God knowing what the birth of Jacob and Esau would produce should not be surprising. That is why before Jacob and Esau were born, God knew what they were like. That was possibly determined at conception or God could look into the womb of Rebekah and see that Jacob was going to come out second clutching the heel of Esau. God knew and determined so that the elder would serve the younger and so it can go on. God did intervene in the lives of some people to bring about His purpose i fulfilling the promises to Abraham and God will continue to do so until His plan is completed. Even today, God is in control of the situation developing in the Middle East. There is nothing man can do that where God is concerned, God knows what the outcome will be, because God has the power to engineer it.

Wrong David. His plan was already complete in the first century. There is no situation in the middle east. That's your false doctrine that made that up.



That said, it does not mean that God is interfering in the lives of every individual on the planet. In fact if we draw away from God, there is every indication God will draw away from us. Here is one example to keep in mind (Deuteronomy 30:17 ) But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, This message was directed at Israel, but this is the principle by which God works and so we are foolish if we ignore these lessons. This is why God has given us the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament to learn from. Unless you read the whole Bible and fit all these elements into place, so you will form an incorrect understanding of God. The more I keep reading God's word and looking at the stories in the old testament, the more that keeps coming out of them. If we do not look for truth in the pages of the Old Testament, we will never find the truth of God's word. The more we read, the more we find answers to questions of why things happened and why God allowed certain things to happen. If you are arguing from the point of having never read all of the Bible, how do you not know what you do not know? The Bible will provide the answers if we look for them. It is too easy for critics to bash the Bible and treat it with contempt when they have not read it or attempted to understand it. I respect anyone's opinion once they have, but then as I have come to learn, the Bible needs to be read many times before it is understood how it all frames together and that God's hand as author is there to be seen throughout.

But that's not what you do at all. You pick and choose what you want to get out of it. Case in point. I proved Abraham got the land promised by God. You ignored all of that and then asserted that the promise wasn't fulfilled with no evidence.


I find it interesting that in this 21st century much of the understanding of the Bible is from the perspective of bronze age people that Rose and Richard keep referring to. Why is it when we know that demons in the Bible are explained as illnesses we understand because of the medical knowledge we have. Why are people still thinking in terms of mythical beings like the Devil and Satan which are personifications for what can be the workings of the mind. God's battle is with the mind of man, not with His Angels that do Hs will. The same battle went on in the mind of Jesus as iti does with us all. We are the devil, the devil resides in us all, the devil is that part of our mind that makes us go against God's instruction and makes us do what we want to do that is not in accordance with God's instruction. Understanding this is simple and yet we confound our understanding by clinging to explanations from the days in which the knowledge we have today was unknown.

Because that's all the Bible is The writings of superstitious primitive men. Nothing more. If you take what we know today and apply it to the Bible you are left with a meaningless book. Because modern knowledge proves the Bible is false. How you could say otherwise is baffling.


The video is easily challenged and I have much more to say. To keep it short, God does not always intervene and mutations in birth will occur. Many changes have taken place (2 Samuel 21:20) And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. The first recorded mutation does not occur until the time of Samuel. Were there any mutations before the Flood? Probably not. The Flood and the major changes that took place could be the cause for mutations that occurred afterwards. We know that radiation can cause defects, radiation from the sun was probably increased due to atmospheric changes that took place. The fact that a rainbow had not been seen until after the Flood is indicative of change taking place.

How convenient you make excuses for God. You have no proof he has ever intervened.


I am not for science trying to explain miracles, yet I am for modern thinking being brought to understand God's word. God's word was written for all ages, it was not written specifically for the 21st century so we have to deal with it as it has been written. The Bible has been written in a way that gives hope to all generations and that hope I have because of the fulfillment of God's word I see happening now. There has to come a time when faith turns into sight and for those watching and waiting, one day Jesus will come and catch many unawares. To those who are not watching and waiting the coming of Christ can either come as great and fearful surprise or they might not even recognize it. Such is the disaster looming, many might not remain alive to witness the return of Jesus and will perish along with the billions that will have perished throughout the ages. That will sound gloomy to no-believers, but is of great comfort to those who know and can recognize God's hand at work.

What miracles? How can you call something a miracle? Could you prove a miracle has occurred? NO.

You're going to be waiting a long time because he isn't coming back. I can prove it from the plain text of the Bible. You on the other hand cannot.

I also love how you assert that you know all these things. You don't know anything to be true. Your blind faith is NOT truth.


God gave Adam and Eve warning. God has given adequate warnings to Israel, but they did not listen and take heed. God is giving warning to all generations and this generation is not excluded. I do not have to go around with a sandwich board shouting; "the end of the world is nigh" but in reality, that day is not far off. It might not be in my day, but as the increasing birth pangs indicate the imminent birth, so the pangs of the world will experience before the return of Christ. If we are not there yet and we see all that is happening in the world today. it begs the question; what will the world be like in another 10 or 20 years. Will man survive that long if left unchecked. I think the jury is still out on what might happen in the next few years, but there is every indication that God's word is still alive and active.

Can you prove the end is near? NO! The Bible says your wrong in your erroneous beliefs. The end already occurred. I know that is hard for you to swallow but it's the reason you stop trying to refute my rock solid argument and stopped responding. Try again if you can.


All the best to everyone for 2013

David[/QUOTE]

Funky1096
02-28-2013, 10:24 PM
The top best evidences for creation, which is the best?

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

1. The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life's DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
Key references: Genetic Entropy (Sanford), In the Beginning was Information (Gitt).

2. Formation of Life Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Key reference: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

3. Design of Living Things Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" - no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.
Key reference: The three-part video series Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution describes many more examples like that of the Bombardier Beetle

4. Irreducible Complexity The idea that "nothing works until everything works." The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
Key reference: Darwin's Black Box (Behe)

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.
Key reference: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (answersingenesis.org)

6. Existence of the Universe By definition, something must be eternal (as we have "something" today and something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question "who created God" is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life Dozens of parameters are "just right" for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean's water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth's circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal "solvent" known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
Key reference: The Privileged Planet (Gonzalez/Richards)

8. Fine-tuning of Physics The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife's edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.
The "multiverse" idea that there may be many universes and ours "just happened" to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask "what was the cause of all these universes?"

Key reference: Hugh Ross lists about 100 parameters on the Reasons To Believe web site. See also Design and the Anthropic Principle

9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don't change much over time ("stasis"). The "Cambrian Explosion" in the "primordial strata" documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a "half-scale/half-wing". A reptile breathes using an "in and out" lung (like humans have), but a bird has a "flow-through" lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation "according to its kind", and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the "geologic column" and giving the appearance of a "Cambrian Explosion". Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from "simpler" forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
Key reference: Fossils Q&A (answersingenesis.org)

10. Human Consciousness A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.
Key reference: The Origin of the Brain and Mind, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004

11. Human Language Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
Key reference: The Mystery of Human Language (Morris, icr.org)

12. Sexual Reproduction Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

13. The Bible's Witness The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

Thank God for His Creations. :pray:

Actually there is a simple statement denieing God meant something besides first day, second day, etc. you have no supporting proof that day meant anything besides day without putting words into the Bible ie revelation 22:18-19.
And saying there is a gap between Genesis 1:1-2 is true there was a gap and that requires a deep Bible of christianity discussion. But there's no way to say there was any matter in that time due to God specifically saying first day, second day, etc without making God a liar and putting words into His Book.
There is a gap but without putting words into the Bible you can't support creationism Biblically speaking.