Post

Creationism Vs Evolution and Dr. Hugh Ross

A friend of mine at church gave me a book recently titled "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross.  I told him I would read it and would get it back to him within a few weeks.  But, I was so interested in the book, I finished it in just 5 days.  What an interesting read!

As a new Christian, I am definitely catching up on the nuts and bolts of things.  For example, I had no opinion of creation beyond that I know Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth, etc.  I just never thought much about it beyond that.  Dr. Ross explains how many scientists (astronomers, physicists, et al) are believers in God and he explains why using scientific facts about our knowledge of the universe.  In short, Dr. Ross, an astronomer himself, points out how famous scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are believers in God (not necessarily the Christian God, but they acknowledge a creator none-the-less).

I hope you will take the time to read this book.  I can't tell you how the info in this book has resonated with me.  I have a naturally curious mind and it was highly valuable to me to get a creationist perspective about the cosmos, our universe, our creator, evolution, etc.

You can hear Dr. Ross on YouTube discussing his belief in "old earth" creationism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff1zF8svAY

Or, visit his site below. 

http://www.reasons.org/

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Dr.+Hugh+Ross&x=0&y=0

josephy josephy 41-45, M 65 Responses May 27, 2009

Your Response

Cancel

After scrolling and observing the level of intelligence of previous posters, *cough* ShyButCreativeSexyGuy *cough*, and others further down the page, I don't think it's worth me coming to this site again.

stephen hawking does not believe in god, and einstein was apparently an agnostic. please correct your article

Darwin drivel contradics one of the most established laws of science: the 2nd Law Of Entropy, aka 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics<br />
<br />
<br />
All things, left to themselves, tend to decay, not to improve<br />
<br />
<br />
DNA, mutations & the fossil record all support Intelligent Design Creation & debunk random chance<br />
<br />
<br />
ATHEISM IS PRIME BRAINWASHING BS LAXATIVE<br />
<br />
<br />
MANY top scientists, from microbiology to astronomy, see SO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject atheist brainwashing & worship the Almighty Creator<br />
<br />
http://www.DissentFromDarwin.org<br />
<br />
http://www.IntelligentDesign.org<br />
<br />
http://www.creation.com<br />
<br />
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aendtime+Bible+prophecies+are+soon+to+be+fulfilled%3F+Zechariah+12%3A2-8,+Ezekiel+38-39,+Matt+24%3A30-42&sourceid=ie8-activity&hl=en

A great book by Dr. Ross is The Genesis Question. He discusses many of gthe same themes in it.

Currently Evolution consists of 250K peer reviewed publications. A fish can argue the the net he is in is actually only a small bit of material compared to the vast area it surrounds but I choose not to be a fish.<br />
Also I don't entirely agree with Dawkins and the others because their using indoctrination tactics so important to the religious marketers. Edgy methods make money so I'm not completely without an understanding.<br />
Personally I believe religious beliefs should have attached an age of majority. I know that's hardly freedom of speech so why not take away the age of majority from the **** movie industry? I'm really not kidding when I say that. Dirty thought is dirty thought. If it's a save my own hiney and flip with everyone else and fixation death and tribulations? Dirty thought no different than sexual dirty thoughts. Hell and damnation? Dirty dirty thoughts. The **** industry knows how to market and keep some addicted to dirty thoughts and so does organized religion.<br />
I view you all as **** addicts. If an age of majority was applied and children couldn't be indoctrinated it would be over in one generation. In the information age we are all learning and our youth will be advanced in this regard. I say it's about time. Religion has caused enough war death and jihad.

Just a few comments. <br />
<br />
Creation versus Evolution ? No . Creation should precede evolution!<br />
Perhaps Creation verses Big Bang? Or Creation versus Big Clap ? (ala Steinhardt-Turok),<br />
Creation versus Multi universes.<br />
<br />
A question haunting man kind since the ancient Greeks or perhaps even before them.<br />
<br />
Many on either ( or most) argue without studying the counter arguments. <br />
An example is the God Delusion (Richard Dawkins) vs The Dawkins Letters ( David<br />
Robertson )<br />
<br />
To decide the one way or the other , I think you should have honest answers to the following<br />
questions<br />
<br />
1 Where did it all start? <br />
<br />
Big Bang ?<br />
<br />
Something before the Big Band ( from another universe , etc?<br />
<br />
Created by a SUPREME BEING.?<br />
(the argument that this BEING also needed a creator leads to counter argument: Who ignited<br />
the fuse to start the Big Bang. Who crated Steinhardt and Turok’s menbranes etc. All answers<br />
resembles a fairy tale. Can anything arise from nothing.<br />
<br />
2 Do you know of any code (except the genetic code) that originated without intelligent<br />
design. ? (The genetic code consists of a four letter alphabet writing only three letter<br />
words.). Why didn’t Mother Nature developed more code.<br />
<br />
3. Who is responsible for computer viruses ? Human or clever computers (using 2 symbols (0<br />
en 1) to write 8 letter words?<br />
<br />
Josephy Google Hugh Ross and Richard Smalley . Richard Smalley was another prominent<br />
scientist who became a Christian..<br />
<br />
Here is also a link to the Dawkins letters.<br />
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/the-dawkins-letters-1-dawkins-delusion.htm<br />
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=470

If a beginning suggests a creator, then a creator suggests a creator. So who created god? We know nothing can exist without coming from somewhere, so where did god come from? Your "answers" expose more questions than they answer josephy. <br />
<br />
Oh and where the heck in the bible does it "explain the atomic nature (unseen atoms)" I've read the entire bible and it doesn't. <br />
<br />
And actually there are transitional fossils that we do have. If you are interested in hearing more about this, I would suggest "Why Darwin Matters" by Michael Shermer as a good starting point. You will also appreciate that he makes many points to show that evolution does not interfere with a creator.

have you read The Shack? I liked it. (Paul Young)

The evidence for evolution can easily be found in the vestigial organs of animals.<br />
Cetations are a good example. The skull of some whales has a vestigial hole next to the blow hole. The nasal bones or whales are elongated and the top of the skull has disappeared. The nasal bones connect to the back of the skull. This has allowed the nostrils to be mounted on top so that the animal can get a breath of air more efficiently when it surfaces. This was not always the case as you can see the smaller hole next to the large blow hole that used to be the animals other nostril. Also there are wrist and finger bones in the animals flippers.

completely off topic here.......but i saw a documentary called Defying Evolution, please, everybody should watch them, they are very inspirational, and show us that God created the universe :)

I have studied physics for many years. It´s common to say that something is moving althought it isn´t true. When I am moving from one place to another, for me all other things are moving. In a Earth point, is correct to say that the sun is moving. Everyone say this.

Closed minds are evident in every "faith" whether it be Judaism, Islam, Christianity or atheism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Ah, you've pulled some content - word for word - from Dr. Steven Batzer's article on a creationist website. I must admit I'd had better hopes for you Josephy,<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
The questions are 100% legitimate mystreba. Why do you avoid their validity? If you can answer those questions, then you will have proved evolution, mystreba. However, you and I both know that no human being can answer those questions because there is no proof of transition from one species to another. <br />
<br />
It is the entire belief in evolution itself which is the straw man. I cannot fathom how an intelligent person can have such faith in a supposed scientific theory when there is absolutely no scientific proof? <br />
<br />
Evolution requires as much or more faith than does creation. At least creationists can point to Einstein, Hawking, the Space-Time Theorem, the Theory of Relativity which points to a beginning to our universe and a beginner or creator. It is cause and effect. Evolution is simply an atheistic theory intended to deny God. It is nothing more and nothing less.

Ah, you've pulled some content - word for word - from Dr. Steven Batzer's article on a creationist website. I must admit I'd had better hopes for you Josephy, and I certainly have better hopes for Dr. Ross's book. Dr. Batzer's article on evolution is a classic straw man - manufacturing a postulation completely unrelated to the actual theory of evolution, simply for the sake of debunking it by argument (not by science). Batzer posulates that scientists (what he terms "evolutionists") have not provided sufficient explanation for how the genome changed to develop the proteins and enzymes needed to support evolution. He claims that they simply believe "it just happened". This could not possibly be further from the truth. On the positive side, by pulling these questions from another source, you can reasonably claim disassociation.<br />
<br />
Though Batzer's questions certainly do have answers, they mean nothing to a debate of evolution. That is to say, <b><i>any</b></i> answer is incapable of either proving or disproving the theory of evolution. In fact, since many of them reference a "saltational" model, once again they reveal themselves as classic creationist "straw man" questions. No scientist subscribes to a saltational model - the proverbial frog giving birth to a cow. Worse, the last three questions demonstrate an almost childish understanding of the scientific process. In fact, one can only conclude Dr. Batzer offers these last three questions not expecting an answer, but simply hoping to give the reader the impression that biologists are nefarious, bumbling idiots. And thus we come full circle once again - I find it exceedingly difficult to debate a scientific theory without a common understanding of the scientific process.<br />
<br />
I'm afraid the time has come once again for me to move on to other things. I sincerely wish you the best, Josephy, in your search for answers. I really have enjoyed our discussion!<br />
<br />
My book arrived today, and I look forward to reading it in the coming weeks - though I must admit a cursory review of the reasons.org website has completely deflated my hopes for a lucid, scientific argument for creation. Nevertheless, I'll send you a message when I'm done to let you know my thoughts. Again, thanks for the recommendation.<br />
<br />
Take care my friend....

I again bring up the fact that what is accepted science to an evolutionist is really just one like-minded faithful evolutionist pointing to the non-scientific belief of another evolutionist faithful. But, let's get down to the nitty gritty so to speak. I'll make it simple for you. If you believe in evolution, then let's take a look at the evolutionists contention regarding the whale.<br />
<br />
Here are a few questions that any scientifically inclined evolutionist should be willing to answer.<br />
<br />
1. Which species did the blue whale evolve from? How do you know? Can you work back three generations from any present-day whale species?<br />
<br />
2. Have these three species progressed in near infinitely fine gradations, as Darwin postulated, or do they demonstrate "saltational" (single-step) jumps?<br />
<br />
3. If the individual species designs did "jump," what was the mechanism, exactly of the jump?<br />
<br />
4. Why did the saltational jump occur when it occurred? Did all species modify at that time due to the same "pressure" or not?<br />
<br />
5. Let's assume that the Darwinian model, which shows a directionless process, is correct. Thus, progress to the sea is as likely as progress toward the land, isn't it? How many land-dwelling species emerged, either from whales, or the transitional species that you listed? Did any of them branch back toward land dwelling? Did any branch toward air-faring creatures and become bats? How do you know?<br />
<br />
6. Can you relate the changes in the genome that you hypothesize to a change in climate? Shouldn't the change in environment correlate to the change in phenotype (that is, the shape and anatomy)?<br />
<br />
7. Have you sequenced the genomes of your postulated progression of species? What does your analysis show?<br />
<br />
8. If you simply looked at the phenotype of the previous species, are you concerned at all that DNA (genotype) and phenotype are not nearly as well correlated as was believed? What is the probability of your phenotype analysis being confirmed by an independent DNA analysis?<br />
<br />
9. Suppose that another researcher were to indicate that your analysis was incorrect. What test would you offer to confirm your analysis?<br />
<br />
10. Would you agree that if your analysis isn't subject to testing that it is not scientific by definition?

<i>sigh...</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Respectfully...<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't mean to sound flippant, but I have to wonder what you think a "transitional" fossil might look like. The back-end of a gecko fused onto the torso of a goldfinch? Sometimes I think the only thing that would convince a creationist is if a frog <i>magically</i> popped into a cow right before their eyes (and quite often I think this is their impression of evolution). I could send you link after link of examples of transitional fossils, but I have no doubt none would meet your personal criteria of transition. If the skull of hominids, the pelvis of archaeopteryx, and the hind-quarters of a whale don't convince you, quite frankly nothing will. We could move on to vestigial developments in embryos (teeth in birds, for example), but I'm not optimistic at this point.<br />
<br />
You mention that there are doubters within the scientific community - let's take Archaeopteryx, for example. Well, that's how the scientific process works! Of any given research, of course there may be dissenting opinions, and they are not afraid to publish and reference them. Those dissenting opinions - to the extent they can be proven with evidence - might even turn or overturn the macro-level theory which the research supports (in this case, evolution). But for more than a hundred years, literally hundreds of thousands of scientists have been studying <br />
the theory with increasingly sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists toil away in obscurity - debunking the theory of evolution would gain them extraordinary fame. But in fact, while many of these scientists have modified our understanding of how evolution operates, you will not find more than a small fraction of one percent of scientists who do not subscribe to the theory. So okay, you're correct - I have a great deal of faith in that, even if my own instincts and my own eyes weren't telling me it is true.<br />
<br />
So let me change tack slightly, and ask you to apply the scientific process. Using this process, the theory of evolution is "debunked" if and when one of the following things happens: 1) a new theory is scientifically proven to preempt it; or 2) evidence-based scientific research proves the theory to be wrong. So... can you produce this? I don't mean personally, but can you direct me to it?<br />
<br />
Also, unless I misunderstand what you mean by quoting science, I've not seen you quote science. Did I miss something? Relating that Einstein or Hawking have belief in a creator is not scientific. It merely has the "scent" of science by its association with a scientist, which is what seems to pass as science for creationists. All of these scientists you mention subscribed fully to the theory of evolution. I'm afraid you would be hard pressed to find one published scientific paper regarding proof of a creator by any of the scientists you quote. Science, of course, has nothing whatsoever to say about a creator, because the scientific process cannot support unfalsifiable claims. That is not the same as saying <i>scientists</i> have nothing to <i>say</i> on the subject, as I'm sure some of them do. Again, I'm not trying to "debunk" speculation about a creator, only to segregate such speculation from science. At any rate, you say the science is before my very eyes. Could you send me some references to the science you're talking about? ie: proof of a creator; how DNA testing disproves the theory of evolution; how birds fossils were already present when the archaeopteryx was found (note - I'm not sure what this means... are you saying that complete bird fossils have been found in the same temporal strata as archaeopteryx? I think the research summary pretty clearly demonstrated that temporally and physically, archaeopteryx is transitional.)<br />
<br />
I'll stop there, though I'm tempted to ask for definition of, and references to, the scientific doubts you ascribe to Ida. <br />
<br />
I'm ever-amazed that while our daily lives are vastly augmented and improved by science in a thousand different ways, we doubt and even misunderstand the process. That is not to say that science is never wrong, but I'm certainly not going to jump off a building because I doubt the theory of gravity. Scientists are in near-unanimous agreement that evolution is on equal footing with gravity, in terms of understanding and proof.

~~~~~~<br />
This research has identified genetic links between man and African apes.<br />
~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Define "genetic links". Many animals share genetic links with humans. However, 1% dna variance is the difference between a chimpanzee and a human--- not very convincing.<br />
<br />
The reality is that each time dna tests are done on fossils, we find that previous evolutionist claims of a link are not realistic and are proven wrong.<br />
<br />
It is DNA testing which will help disprove evolution IMO, not the reverse. I am 100% for DNA testing of fossils.<br />
<br />
AS for IDA, in 10 years, I suggest that it will have been debunked and the evolutionist community will again be searching for the ever elusive "missing link". There is already doubt arising in the scientific community about IDA.

~~~~~<br />
That is because there is no science in creationism.<br />
~~~~~<br />
<br />
I disagree. All I have been talking about in this thread is the science that points to a creator, etc. Einstein, Hawking, and many other scientists have done research which points to a creator/beginner/causer of the universe. Fascinating stuff!<br />
<br />
So, how can one tell me that there is no science in creationism. The science is before your very eyes, even if you disagree with the conclusions a creationist makes, he/she is quoting science, at least, I am quoting science to back up my conclusions and/or suppositions. Can't you see that? E

An interesting thing I notice about evolutionists is that they quote other scientists who agree with their "speculation" about the theory of evolution as if it is settled science. In reality, mystreba, there is not one transitional fossil that definitively proves a transition from one species to another. The link you provided of the lizard to a bird is pure speculation. If you read about the theory, you will find that there are many doubters within the scientific community. For example, birds fossils were already present whenever this supposed transition took place of a reptile to a bird.<br />
<br />
It comes down to faith, mystreba. You have faith that the scientific speculation regarding evolution is correct, even though there is no hard evidence (only speculation among like minded scientists). I do not find speculation = proof. That is where we differ.<br />
<br />
I am willing to consider evolution as a valid theory if proof becomes available. I am an old earth creationist so I believe the age of the earth is 4+ billion years old, that we have found dinosaur fossils, species that once lived and have died out, etc. But, in regard to one species magically becoming a completely different species, well, again, where is the hard proof? It does not exist. Only speculation of what "might" have happened.

Just for contrast, here is a link to a typical creationist "scientific" website that "disproves" the theory of evolution. They have assembled a list of fossils that demonstrate genomic statis over millions of years for certain species. They then take a GIANT, unscientific leap to claim that this falsifies the theory of evolution. Of course, they cannot (and do not) produce anything scientific to back the ludicrous claim. Read it - it is almost beyond belief that this is a serious website.<br />
<br />
http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=68

I can't stop. Do you see, Josephy, what you've started? This is FASCINATING stuff!<br />
<br />
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html<br />
<br />
This is a link to an extensive summary article on archaeopteryx, which is considered a transitional fossil for reptile==>bird. It is fascinating, not only for the detail that outlines the morphology of the species, but also for the insight into the scientific process. Note the degree of debate among the scientific community. This "peer review" part of the scientific process ensures that the "final result" of research is the best result possible, given the evidence. (I purposely put "final result" into quotes, because it may be said that we never actually produce final results - the scientific process is ongoing, with no end. Note the timeline of research for this one handful of fossils, and it hasn't stopped yet. New evidence may overturn old research - that's the beauty of it.)<br />
<br />
Note also the abundance of scientific references. Again, also a required element of any scientific publication (though this summary article would not be considered a scientific publication, it does reference them). I've yet to see a creationist publication on evolution that contains scientific references to support their claims. That is because there is no science in creationism.

One last comment - evolution is not chance. The genetic mutations underlying evolution are random, but natural selection (descent with modification) is NOT chance. It is a process totally controlled by, and in tune with - nature.

Darn - forgot this comment. My God, just look at the fossil record of hominids - from australopithecus to homo and modern humans. If that isn't a compelling 3-million year transition, I don't know what is.<br />
<br />
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=24'<br />
<br />
Also, don't forget the recent find of "Ida" - it's significance (though obvious) is not yet defined.<br />
<br />
Finally, the advent of molecular paleoanthropology nearly makes the transitional fossil obsolete. This research has identified genetic links between man and African apes.

Those who use evolution as "proof" of no God are delusional. And unscientific to boot.<br />
<br />
It is exceedingly difficult for humans to grasp the magnitude of earth-time. We think of 100 years as a LONG period of time (more than a lifetime), and we're talking more than 60 million consecutive lifetimes. Six billion years is almost unfathomable - and certainly long enough to support the theory of evolution. Again, you confuse atheists with scientists. No scientist resisted the expanding universe theory (big bang) for fear that it undermined the theory of evolution (or any other theory). That is not how science works.<br />
<br />
In terms of transitional fossils, I'm not a scientist, but I don't think you need to be one to understand that transition is the main recurring theme of the fossil record. The theory of evolution <b><i>predicts</b></i> the progression of the fossil record, and also predicts that no reversals will be found in the geological strata - that is, that amphibians will not appear before fishes, mammals will not appear before reptiles, and no complex life will be shown to predate eukaryotic cells - and this prediction has held fast for more than a hundred years of research and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of fossil finds.<br />
<br />
In terms of actual intermediate or transitional fossils, I have to wonder where to start. I believe we could spend a good long time looking just at Arthropoda for example. But just to begin, if we stick to vertibrates, here is a link to some examples of fish to amphibians. Its a place to start. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran Maybe someone else has a better scientific resource. Although not mentioned in the link above, I also know that the transition from amphibian to whale has also been thoroughly documented in the fossil record.<br />
<br />
The finches that Darwin studied in the Galapagos Islands have shown in more modern study to be susceptible to evolutionary changes in a single season of drought - sufficient to develop an entire new species in less than 200 years. In this case, the "transitional fossils" are not even fossils yet!

~~~~~~~<br />
There are literally thousands of transitional fossils. Are you talking about primate==>man? <br />
~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
My first reaction to that statement is-- well, then I am a believer if that is true. But, I don't think that there is empirical evidence as you might be suggesting. As for primate to man -- yes, that would be the golden chalice of evolution. Sure. Show me that transitional fossil.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~<br />
Scientific advances have shed doubt on evolution? You lost me there. This theory has been around for a long time, and nothing has shown it to be in error. It is the epitome of a predictive scientific theory.<br />
~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
In regard to the amount of time which evolutionary theory (and abiogenesis) requires, yes, scientific advances showing the age of the universe to be finite and not infinite have shed doubt on the plausibility of abiogenesis and evolution because there is not enough time for the "chance" of evolution to be plausible. That is why evolutionists tried to disprove the expanding universe theory. The theory requires infinite time for the chance of abiogenesis and evolution to be feasible. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~<br />
Josephy, I praise you for the steady manner in which you pursue your side of the debate. You remind me of a very dear friend of mine who is a young-earth creationist - I may think his beliefs are delusional (and he may think mine are), but he always debates in earnest and with good humor. I hope we don't offend - it is never my intention.<br />
~~~~~~~~<br />
I thank you for your praise and no, I don't get offended by ideas. I get offended by some people (not you) who argue from a self-delusional position of superiority, but never by ideas. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~<br />
ps -<br />
I think it is incorrect to link evolutionists to atheists. I don't consider myself an atheist.<br />
~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
I understand. To be fair, a belief in no God and a belief in evolution are not the same thing. I do suspect, however, that there are very few atheists who do not believe in evolution. Some (many) of these atheists use evolutionary theory as a tool to support their belief in no-God. So, from my stand point, the two are often one in the same.

There are literally thousands of transitional fossils. Are you talking about primate==>man? Scientific advances have shed doubt on evolution? You lost me there. This theory has been around for a long time, and nothing has shown it to be in error. It is the epitome of a predictive scientific theory.<br />
<br />
Josephy, I praise you for the steady manner in which you pursue your side of the debate. You remind me of a very dear friend of mine who is a young-earth creationist - I may think his beliefs are delusional (and he may think mine are), but he always debates in earnest and with good humor. I hope we don't offend - it is never my intention.<br />
<br />
ps -<br />
I think it is incorrect to link evolutionists to atheists. I don't consider myself an atheist.

Ahh, Jainism. Where would we be if the Abrahamic tradition had gone that way instead?<br />
<br />
~~~~~~Take this you expired equine!~~~~~~<br />
<br />
What, you think we're all ready for the glue factory? I've been thinking recently that I'm a shovel-ready project! ;^-)

~~~ In terms of evolution, doubting creationists are swimming against a massive tide of evidence. ~~~<br />
<br />
Show me one single transitional fossil. That would be evidence. Theory does not equal evidence. You are simply repeating what atheists (evolutionists) have been repeating since the time of Darwin. Though your theory becomes less and less probable as scientific advances shed new doubt on the theory, you remain committed in your faith.<br />
<br />
Again, please point me to any proof of a transitional fossil which would prove evolution. We both know that you can't, and we both know that any thing less than evidence of a transitional fossil will not prove evolutionary "theory".

~~~ (Godfree said:) I have read all the posts on this site, interesting. But I must ask, you say you support science and it is only the lack of scientific evidence in evolution that keeps you from embracing it, then I must ask your opinions on the talking snakes and magic trees, do you have scientific proof of these? Virgin Jewish maidens giving birth to future zombies who were their own fathers, you have proof of this. The dead of Jerusalem rising from the graves and walking about, you have evidence of this?<br><br />
You have a problem with humans evolving from lower species but no problem with them coming from dirt? ~~~<br />
<br />
Are you serious? Of all the questions you could possibly use to challenge me in regard to my belief, you bring up stories in the bible which you find unbelievable?<br />
<br />
Godfree, that is an entirely different discussion and is not related to science as is being discussed here. I would be happy to talk about scripture with you, but not in this thread. Why don't you start one in the Atheist group and then invite me. I'll promise to show up and share my beliefs.<br />
<br />
~~~ I must seriously question your affinity to science. ~~~<br />
<br />
Your insult means nothing to me. It does not make me angry and it does not change the truth in the ideas which I have posted.<br />
<br />
You are simply a negative person. A doubter who goes beyond "doubt", to a state of "disdain" and possibly even "hatred" for anyone who does not believe as you do. Your mind is closed.<br />
<br />
I hope that I will always be more accommodating to those who do not share my beliefs.

~~~and to many, suggested a creator~~~~~<br />
<br />
You said it better than I could. It is mere suggestion to link creationism with the scientific theory of an expanding universe, and it is only a suggestion to <i>some portion</i> of the population.<br />
<br />
I think now that I see what you are saying - science backs the possibility of a creator. That is very different from saying that creationism is scientific. Again, there is NO science behind creationism. To believe that modern science backs creationism is only a belief. There is no science to creationism, and, according to the definition of science, there never will be - the concept of a creator is not testable or verifiable in any scientific sense of the terms.<br />
<br />
In terms of evolution, doubting creationists are swimming against a <i><b>massive</i></b> tide of evidence.<br />
<br />
In terms of your statements about atheists, I will not argue. I've long held that absolutes are the root of all evil, and in terms of absolutes atheists look an awful lot like theists. I think your points about atheists rejecting the theory of an expanding universe are subject to debate, but it doesn't matter. Atheists are not scientists (though some scientists are atheists), and as we see with creationists, without science its all just beliefs.