mmm12345

Elphaba, I will say that I think you're being a little rough on me. History has proven that even real live scientists make and have made mistakes. Some hypotheses that have been theorized in the past have actually been proven false, so it's not a crime to speculate or even assume that this theory could also be very wrong. As far as dinos and critical thinking, I don't get the connection. What is so absurb about it? MMM

Newton’s theory of gravity has been tested, but has not been explained. Gravity is still not understood among the world's best physicists. Yet it is still a “theory,” which I have explained to you is not just a guess, but factual in the scientific world. So your comment is wrong, which is not surprising as you do not understand science. Once again, you do not understand science. And because of this, you are not qualified to determine if evolution is a working theory or not. No, it is not. It is a theory, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity. You have already admitted you are not a scientist. So, if you are not a scientist, what makes you think you are qualified to make these pronouncements? It doesn’t matter what you’ve read or who you have talked to. Your ignorance of the scientific method precludes you from truly understanding how scientists work, so you would never understand whether there is evidence of evolution or not. Yet you keep insisting there isn’t. You are not a scientist, and you know nothing about how scientists collect evidence and samples. You know nothing about the rigorous testing that is part of the scientific method. You know nothing about the extreme amount of time and effort it takes before scientists are comfortable calling a hypothesis an actual “theory.“ Therefore, you are completely unqualified to lecture anyone on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. You know absolutely nothing about it! Your claim that human beings existed and walked on the earth the same time as the dinosaurs is insulting to your fellow Creationists. It is beyond ignorant and defies every single archeologist's claims in the entire world. Yet you think you know better than them? Again, human beings did not come onto the scene until millions of years later. I have no idea where you get your information, but you have no critical thinking skills if you believe there were human beings living on earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. You are incredibly gullible. You need to actually read what true scientists have to say about evolution, becase you are not a scientist. You also need to stop assuming the source of these crazy claims, such as human beings walked with the dinosaurs, is reliable, becase I garantee you it is not. Finally, the following is the most obvious proof that you are not a scientist, and that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. You claimed that evolutionists maintain man came from apes. Only anti-evolutionists go around saying this, and it makes you look ignorant. It is the sure sign of someone who does not know what he's talking about, as no one in the science of evolution says the man came from apes. No one. I'll let you look up what scientists actually do say about that. But do yourself a favor and don't ever say evolutionists claim man comes from apes again. You only tell everyone around you that you are not a scientist. Elphaba After all that I think you need a couple of deep cleansing breaths!

D- why did you quote those?

Amen, Chaplain! Sqallan, as I said earlier, I am not a scientist so I therefore cannot talk their talk. And I believe it is the talk that's doing the walking in evolution and not the facts themselves. That's also what has happened with the legal system in this great Christian/Judeo nation. The very first university, Harvard, was started with the express purpose of making sure that children would grow up to be able to read their Bibles. Christians love education. We are more than willing to look at the facts, consider the different points of view and then reach our on conclusions based upon reason in light of the facts. Evolution is a theory that is searching for facts that support it. I.D. is a theory that can very easily take those same facts and say, Hey, look how nicely it all fits together! Evolution keeps tripping over their own conclusions and groping for all kinds of "quantum leaps" to make their theory work. The theory stands alone, the facts keep proving it wrong. Now, again, I don't have room to bore you with my shaky knowledge of this subject, but why don't you go to this website and do some investigative reporting in our camp, look at the facts in light of our theory and then make some determinations. But that again brings me back to the beginning of the whole thing, you'd actually have to look at the facts, turn them around, think about them, see if they fit and then come to a conclusion that it's spagetti monster nonsense, and you'd have to do all that before you dismiss even looking into it based on the laws in place today which give you the right to close your mind because it would be wrong to look at anything that hints of a supernatural creator within the schema of science or society - your religion wouldn't allow that. Here is something I copied from another great website - even better than answers in Genesis . org - that has a section dealing specifically with the facts from reputable science and looking at them without the evolution security goggles on. I'm not sure of the timetable they adhere to, but it is a solid argument for I.D. vs. TOE The website is godandscience.org. General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview? by Rich Deem Introduction Does everything have a natural cause? Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism. Rich Deem This is the first part of a 2 part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview. Do skeptics have beliefs?Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments. The skeptical worldviewBefore we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost is that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must reply completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur. Problem with the skeptical worldviewLet me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview. The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. Part 2: Is there any evidence to support this possible existence of God? Conclusion A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Continued in part 2... Part 2: Evidence for Belief in God | Part 3: Why Christianity? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Pages Evidence for God's Existence from Cosmology The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 2 Evidence for Belief in God God of the Gaps - Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of Argument? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References General Relativity - Einstein Discovers God Origins of the Big Bang Theory The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning Infinite/Eternal Universe Problems Alternate Models for the Origin of the Universe Infinite/Eternal Universe Problems Steady State Universe Problems Oscillating Universe: Observational Problems The Universe as an Engine: Oscillating Universe Observational Problems The Hartle-Hawking Model: Observational Problems Quantum Cosmology: Observational Problems Oscillating Universe: Observational Problems http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html

D - why did you leave the church? If you don't mind me asking....

It's a vicous circle, sqallan. We're right back to the beginning of the argument. You have faith that there is no God and therefore the scientific evidence collected thus far must point to the TOE, we evolved slowly over millions of years. There is no proof and yet it is taught as fact. I say that the scientific evidence collected thus far points to a creator, an intelligent designer with a plan, there is no proof and yet it is not even entertained as a plausible possibility because it would infringe upon your faith that there is no God. That's the point I'm trying to make. Creationists don't want to change the facts, we just want to suggest an alternative possibility. As far as this spagetti monster thing, it is absurb because its only purpose is to make ID look foolish. It is a mockery not science, and it's meant to be a mockery and not science.

Sqallan, you do not believe in God, then?

I‘ve read your post and can only respond by saying your post is full of nonsense. Foremost, you know nothing about scientific theory whatsoever. You dismiss it out of hand, assuming “theory“ means something it does not. You say you are not a scientist, and you are right--you are not. It‘s astounding the assumptions you make about science when even you admit you know nothing about it, when you say: “I don't have enough scientific education to speak to this. . . .”In scientific circles a “theory” is not a “guess or opinion.” As used in science, theory does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation — it's much more full-blown. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These “theories” are not anyone’s “opinion,” “guess,” “hunch,” or “bright idea.” Until you understand what “theory” means in the scientific community, you will never have any credibility when you discuss your beliefs. Never. This is exactly what I am talking about. The “theory” of evolution is not someone’s opinion. It is a scientific theory in the same sense that Einstein’s theory of relativity is a theory, or that Newton’s theory of gravity is a theory. Again, until you understand that, you will not be taken seriously by anyone who understands the theory of evolution or scientific theory. You may have some very good points of view, but as long as you keep calling evolution someone’s “theory,” as if it were someone’s “opinion,” no one is going to take you seriously. I was going to stop here, but I couldn’t let this one go by: You are seriously suggesting that human beings were alive at the same time dinosaurs walked on the earth? I was going to ask you for a reference for this, but I decided not to because even if you had one it would be utter nonsense. I assure you human beings were not alive when dinosaurs walked the earth. There are no bones, footprints or any other things from human beings from the various periods of the dinosaurs. Human beings did not walk on the planet until millions of years later! It is fine to believe in the Bible and say so. It is outrageous to believe in the Bible and claim there is proof of all of its claims, because there is not. And frankly, if you continue to do so, you will be telling untruths. There are no credible studies that say human beings lived during the time of the dinosaurs. That is absolutely nonsense. If you continue to claim there were, you will be perpetuating lies. Kiddo, you need to stop being so defensive about scientists. They are not out to destroy the Bible. They are not out to tell you what you can or can’t believe. They do not have an agenda to fill your head with evil lies. They are only seekers of truth, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with you believing every word of the Bible is true, and telling people of your belief. However, it is wrong to claim that science is nothing but someone’s “theory,” as if it is only someone’s “opinion,” when you know that is not what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a scientific fact. There may come a day when that “fact” is replaced with new information, and updated. But Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a fact. Newton’s Theory of Gravity is a fact. And the Theory of Evolution is a fact. We do not understand it completely, and no one claims to understand it completely. And there’s nothing wrong with that. The bottom line is no one is out to take your beliefs away. Don’t make it out to be worse than it really is by using the wrong definitions for scientific words. You only hurt your own credibility. Elphaba As I stated, I am not a scientist. But I utterly disagree with you when you put Einstein and Newton's theory along side Evolution. They actually observed and tested their theories. The TOE is only a bunch of gathered observations and speculations. Their is absolutely NO proof that anything whatsoever has EVER evolved from one kind to another. Mutation is not evolution, it is not the addition of info but either the loss of it or the mix up of it. I will have to do some searching, but if we as Christians claim to put our faith in the writings of men and cling to the Bible as the voice of God then you exlain the Leviathon or the Bohemeth in the old testiment....and don't suggest they were crocodiles with tails the size of Cedars... It is not such a far cry to believe that dinosaurs walked with man as it is to believe man was an ape. The fact that you think it is ridiculous to believe such is proof that you have been heavily endoctrinated into the evolutionary belief system. I'm only saying, now that you've learned all their is about it, go do a little creation research and compare the two. That is all the creationist wants, equal access to the human mind.

'For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.' (Moses 1:39)Thanks for the answers and I may have missed it, but did this get answered?: Wouldn't we cross the same line in saying 'One has a body and the Other does not.' as we would in saying 'One has a body and the Other has another body.'? -a-train I don't believe so, at least not when we examine the purpose of the body. Christ took on flesh for the purpose of being like his brothers, those he came to save. He did not have a body before the manger birth. His body was a provision for a sacrifice.

I can't think of one solitary contribution the theory of evolution has made to our great educational system over these past 50 or however many years since the scopes monkey trials other than maybe funding the building of museums. We are a great educational nation because we are a great nation. We were a great nation before the scopes monkey trials and we will remain so even if evolution stands side by side with creationism in our colleges and universities. Science is science. Whether God created the world or we climbed out of a bucket of slop, physics will not stop being physics and math will not change due to it. That's my whole point. God created physics and botany and biology. All the laws of nature are His. Creationists don't deny science, we embrace it. We are simply saying that people should open up their eyes and look at what we are saying the science points to. Why is the religion of Evolution given that consideration but the religious people who believe in Creation aren't given that same respect. As I said, Evolution has not contributed AT ALL to our educational institutions. The pursuit of knowledge was in full swing long before Darwin came on board. I can't think of one solitary contribution the theory of evolution has made to our great educational system over these past 50 or however many years since the scopes monkey trials other than maybe funding the building of museums. We are a great educational nation because we are a great nation. We were a great nation before the scopes monkey trials and we will remain so even if evolution stands side by side with creationism in our colleges and universities. Science is science. Whether God created the world or we climbed out of a bucket of slop, physics will not stop being physics and math will not change due to it. That's my whole point. God created physics and botany and biology. All the laws of nature are His. Creationists don't deny science, we embrace it. We are simply saying that people should open up their eyes and look at what we are saying the science points to. Why is the religion of Evolution given that consideration but the religious people who believe in Creation aren't given that same respect. As I said, Evolution has not contributed AT ALL to our educational institutions. The pursuit of knowledge was in full swing long before Darwin came on board. And it just dawned on me that most of the great discoveries that lead to our later discoveries were pursued and made while standing on the shoulders of great men who believed that God created them. They had no problem pursuing knowlege in the face of God. You see, that's the problem with the narrow-minded evolutionist community. They think that the introduction of God at this point in time will dumb us all down. Well, actually, I think we were all a bit smarter before we took Creation and God out of the schools. Apparently you mock me. God vs. No God. God in 7 days vs. God in millions of years. Those are the points I thought we agreed on. I believe one, you I thought the other. Secular evolutionists dismiss the God part.

mmm12345, I believe that God could have created the world in six seconds if he chose. I don't insist on a literal reading of the hebrew word that is translated into "day", which would mean that the "day" existed before the sun, earth and moon. Secondly God tends to work with the rules that He created for the universe and not just ignore them. If something can be explained through a scientific theory then why create a more complex or challenging solution. But I don't think that the scientific theory of evolution explains creation, there are too many missing pieces and too much guessing without actual proof. And isn't Evolution a bit more complex and challenging than the simple explanation that God created man just as he is? I mean, cave men could simply be men who lived in caves before the invention of aluminum siding, right. Prehistoric tools simply tools that man was forced to use before the invention of the knife or discovery of present metals. Cave paintings could simply be paintings in caves done by men and women who lived there before the condo era or the first craft store was built. I mean, isn't it simpler to say that God created men, they were happy in a perfect garden and then were banished into a world that no longer was perfect in temperature or temperment so they then had to fend for themselves and learn how to live without the constant company and favor of God. Creationists believe that the ice age was the result of the flood. We believe that Adam and Eve were kicked out of a perfectly protected garden due to sin and then had to fend for themselves in a world, that just like they, had fallen. I don't think it makes it more confusing to believe that we were created as men to be men. it's seems more confusing to me that God would create single cells to be complex beings. Evolution requires a lot of trial and error over a long period of time. There has to be mutation and quantum leaps and all kinds of major fluctuations in the whole gene pool for you and I to finally pop out. I don't think God needed to make apes in order to get men. I believe He knew exactly what he wanted and all that we see is exactly the way he meant it to be...no counting the stuff that came out of the fall, though, i.e, cancer, T18 babies, etc. I believe he allowed that more than he wanted it all.

But the table of time that evolutionists use to dismiss the Creator is based on 24 hr periods, they just use billions and millions of them. I mean, why is it so hard to believe that God simply created man and set the world in motion? Take a watch, for example, one that takes one day to put together. We wouldn't say it took millions of years to make that watch, just a few hours. All the components needed to assemble that watch were present and accounted for at the moment that watch started ticking. But if the watch was assembled at 3:00 on January 2nd then we'd say it took a few hours or perhaps "a day" to make. I'm merely saying that whatever God did before or after he set our time space capsul in motion has nothing to do with the fact that he created us. He created us and we exist. Why couldn't he have done it in a day when he had and has everything necessary for creation within himself? I don't think he started us simmering a few billions years ago, then fashioned us into slime, watched us progress and then poof gave us all the mental and emotional components necessary to fall from grace. I have no problem believing he created us in a moment in a perfect place and the rest is written history. mmm12345, I believe that God could have created the world in six seconds if he chose. I don't insist on a literal reading of the hebrew word that is translated into "day", which would mean that the "day" existed before the sun, earth and moon. Secondly God tends to work with the rules that He created for the universe and not just ignore them. If something can be explained through a scientific theory then why create a more complex or challenging solution. But I don't think that the scientific theory of evolution explains creation, there are too many missing pieces and too much guessing without actual proof.

Can someone tell me why a person who believes in an all-powerful God who has the ability to create life, lay down life and pick it up again couldn't have just created the world in 7 actual days like it says in Genesis? I'm just interested in your point of view. I believe Genesis to be the literal account of Creation. I have absolutely no problems reconciling the whole kit-n-kabootle and raising my hands in awe and wonder at a mighty God!

I believe the Creation story in scripture explains in a most beautiful manner the great sacrifice and effort required by G-d to bring about all that was necessary to sustain life. It was not a trivial effort where G-d snapped his all powerful fingers and it was done in less than a blink of an eye - in truth it required great investment and sacrifice by both the Father and the Son. And I believe G-d wanted that to be the most important part of the scripture creation explanation. The Traveler Traveler, Why do you write G-d and not God? Just wondering. MMM

[ Talk about what? The Creationist story? That’s because it isn’t science. Of course they don’t want to talk about it. They are scientists, not theologians.] Well, when it comes to evolution, that is debatable. They don't have any science to prove their theory, that's why it's still only a theory. Later you ask me if I know the meaning of the word theory and I believe it is a guess or opinion, one that needs to be proven. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, it is still an unproven theory, an opinion or guess which scientists attempt to support using scientific observation. However, as of today, it is still only a theory and has not been proven through the observations set forth by scientists. I am not a scientist, nor can I talk the talk of one, but I have done some research and it seems to me that science keeps scampering around in search of proof to support their theory while Creationists are laughed at for pointing out that the evidence already found to date totally supports their theory. That’s because Creationism is not science and it doesn‘t belong in a science course. Putting it there violates the separation of Church and State. There is no reason it can’t be taught in the schools, but in a humanities course about religions of the world. You just did exactly what I was talking about, you dismissed Creationism without looking at the science. You decided it wasn't scientific because it is not appropriate to discuss religion and science in the same room...just like the Judge in PA, no examination of the facts, only examination of the laws already in place with no regard to science. Look at the science and then judge the theory. Nonsense. They are scientists. They always look at science. It’s one of the reasons so many of them reject Intelligent Design. But not all of them. Go read the transcripts and you will find that the science was not the focus of the case, just whether or not it was legally acceptable to present a theory that was based on a belief in God. They never looked at the science. Of course they did. You would rather they break the law? I find it interesting that it is against the law to examine scientific facts that support a theory simply because they may lead to God...sounds kind of convenient if you've decided their is no God and there's no way you'll even momentarily entertain the idea that there is one. Sounds kinda like what God said would happen, no tolerance for truth. I don't know, I guess I'd say, Yeah, break the law and look at the science. Or better yet, let's change the law and look at the science. More nonsense. Who has ever prevented you from discussing God? We currently have two candidates for PRESIDENT who are extremely devoted to God and therefore inspire a great deal of conversation about God. Churches are, for the most part, against same-sex marriages, including the LDS Church, and have actively taken political stands against said marriages; therefore, they have publicly been discussing God. As far as schools are concerned, anyone can talk about God all they want--the students just cannot do it during class time, nor can the teachers. Otherwise, no one can stop them from praying or praising God all they want, and that is as it should be. What if the teacher were Muslim, teaching your children to be Muslim, and that Jersusalem was given to them by God. Would you be happy about that? Am I missing something here? Aren't we talking about Creationism vrs Evolution. Oh, Pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeeeeeee! "More nonsense.....as far as schools are concerned, anyone can talk about God all they want -- the students just cannot do it during class time, nor can the teachers." Exactly! Why not? If the science is good - and it is because it supports Creationism just as well, and even better at times, than evolution, why the heck can't we talk about it during class! That's the point! It is illegal to entertain scientific observations, the scientific method if it even slightly hints of a God. As long as what we are talking about in no way suggests that there may be a God we can bring it on in, but if for one moment it is going to suggest that God did it all by himself it is thrown out completely and people think that is acceptable, just like you do. Why? The science is exactly the same. The facts are exactly the same. We just say that they fit our theory better than they do evolution - and they do! Here's just one little tidbit, dinosaurs. Evolution claims that they were extinct millions of years before man. We claim they walked with man. Now, scientists are finding bones and footprints and all kinds of things that lean towards the fact that man and Dino actually did hang together. We've know that for thousands of years. The Bible told us so. What evidence is the same? The Galapogus Islands. (excuse spelling) And again, I'm no expert. Go to answersingenesis.com or org and you can read the facts from real scientists and not just get my layman's opinion. Darwin observed many difference species on those islands and concluded that they had evolved from others. Creationists say, tiny people, tiny babies. Tiny birds with tiny beaks make tiny birds with tiny beaks. Take ten tall people and mate them with 50 tiny people and over the course of hundreds of years you'll get some tiny people. Heck, look at the Great Dane and the toy poodle, both dogs but totally different. Oh, I don't have time or the desire to quote all the things I've read but the point is that scientists don't look at it from our perspective, they dismiss ours because it involves a Creator and therefore as far as post scopes monkey trial society is concerned, our findings are based in faith and not science and therefore cannot be entertained as science. But what I am saying and most creationists are saying is that that is just an excuse not to actually look at the scientific facts that actually support Creationsism beautifully. There are many scientists who have looked at Intelligent Design and have rejected it, many with disgust. :) I'm sure they have. Just like I dismiss their theory with disgust. I'm just saying, let's present them both side by side without having to wait until the bell rings and we're out in the hall. However, there are other scientists who have looked at Intelligent Design and have become convinced there is something to it. Your broad statement that no one will look at it is misleading and untrue. I am curious. What is your theory? Do you understand what a “theory” is in the scientific world? Do you understand a “theory” is not the same as a theory in the non-scientific world? I thought you'd never ask. First of all let me say that I believe a theory in the scientific world is no different than on outside the scientific world. The only difference in the scientific world is it must be supported through the scientific method, which in the case of evolution and Creation puts both at a loss since we are speculating about past events and can't actually simulate them and test them. But our theory is that God created the heavens and the earth and that he created man as man and the animals as the animals. We believe that ilife is all as God created it to be and that it is not evolving towards something, but rather it is deteriorating on this side of heaven due to the fall of man. Let's just take petrified wood for a moment. I remember being taught that wood took thousands of years to petrify into rock, but when Mt. St. Helen's errupted the trees that were found at the bottom of the lake that had come off the mountain, at lease some of them, had petrified in only moments. And have you seen any buffalo lately No, of course not, but it sure didn't take western civilization long to wipe them almost completely off the planet. We don't believe it took millions of years for all that we see to be, it took only thousands of years. And creationists disagree on the exact amount of time, but they all agree that we did not begin as soup. I don't have enough scientific education to speak to this, but the evidence that we look at is the exact evidence that evolutionists look at, we just use different goggles to analyze it. Go to that website, Answersingenesis, and read their stuff. They have DVDs and magazines and books by some very reputable scientists. I will only close with one comment that Richard Dawkins makes inone of his books, Thousands of Demons, I believe. He says, and I'm badly paraphrasing here, that some of Evolutions claims are quite ridiculous and very difficult to believe, but that they must adhere to them lest "we let a creators foot in the door" and we must never do that. You see, it really doesn't matter what evidence we set forth, it will be dismissed simply because it points to a God. What information do you have that the scientists evidence is the same as the creationist’s evidence? My question is a sincere one Elphaba