A Question About The Creation

[lds_mormon]

I believe in the creation story recounted in Genesis, about how God created everything and put them in their rightful place, but I'm not so sure I believe everything about the creation as our church explains it. Most Church's believe that the earth was created Ex Nihlo (out of nothing) But we claim that not even God can create matter, he simply organized it. He has to follow the rules, too.

As a result, creation actually means to "organize" It is this logic that other Mormons use to explain scientific discoveries that claim the earth is older than six thousand years. Basically, since God is using 'used parts' there is a good chance that those parts will date back further than the creation.

But I've always wondered how this can be. God didn't create this matter, because you can't create matter. But someone had to have made it at some point. I just can't buy into the theory that God used spare parts. I feel that God is all powerful, and thus can create whatever he likes.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there any clarifications on it? This just doesn't logically make sense.

[AnthonyB]

Can I add some questions?

Does LDS belief that the earth is made out of recycled material or that the whole universe is made out of recycled material?

Could the idea of string theory that this universe was caused by the collision of two higher dimensional membranes that then caused the big bang that led to the creation of all matter and time in our universe. Which could be used to create a sythesis of the ideas, matter existed outside our universe (in the universe and dimensions that God exists in) but our universe was created out of nothing (as a subset of those dimensions)?

Since Quantum mechanics says the universe creates matter out of nothing, why limit God to not being able to do what the universe appears to do in accordance to the laws of nature as best we understand them?

[Moksha]

As far as matter goes, why not stick with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

As far as creationism goes, as long as creationist LDS can coexist with LDS who believe in evolution, then more power to them. It is good however, not to tie the Church to an evolutionary dead end like Creationism.

[mmm12345]

Ouch! My Brain hurts! Those are some way out there thoughts! My son just asked me the other day how God began, how it all started. He said he couldn't understand how God could have no beginning and no end. I told him just what I just said, "Ouch! My brain hurts just thinking about it!"

I don't believe we can understand it all. Let God be God I say! But I don't believe God used spare parts. He definately created them.

That reminds me of a Joke I heard....

One scientist says to God, " Okay, big guy, I've finally got it figured out. I challenge you to a creation dual. I have finally managed to create life out of nothing but dust. "

So the competition is all set to begin, God standing in front of his table with a pile of dust, the scientist in front of his. The clock ticks down, 3, 2, 1 - Poof, the scientists dust disappears!

"Hey, wait a minute," he shouts. "That's not fair, God. Give me back my dust!"

"Make your own," God says with a smile and a wink!

[Traveler]

I believe in the creation story recounted in Genesis, about how God created everything and put them in their rightful place, but I'm not so sure I believe everything about the creation as our church explains it. Most Church's believe that the earth was created Ex Nihlo (out of nothing) But we claim that not even God can create matter, he simply organized it. He has to follow the rules, too.

As a result, creation actually means to "organize" It is this logic that other Mormons use to explain scientific discoveries that claim the earth is older than six thousand years. Basically, since God is using 'used parts' there is a good chance that those parts will date back further than the creation.

But I've always wondered how this can be. God didn't create this matter, because you can't create matter. But someone had to have made it at some point. I just can't buy into the theory that God used spare parts. I feel that God is all powerful, and thus can create whatever he likes.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there any clarifications on it? This just doesn't logically make sense.

Most of us have heard of the famous equation E=MC(sq). This, in essence tells us that matter and energy are two different states of the same thing. Even the most fundamental believer attributes creation to the “power” of G-d. If, as you imply, G-d had access to unlimited energy (mater in a different state) he could create anything. This does not violate any scientific principle I know.

The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value. So we learn that from that which is weak and without value – G-d is able to make that which is mighty and strong.

The last point I would like to make is that G-d created male and female that we might join with him and become co-creators of his greatest creation.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value.

What do you mean by "ancient dust?"

How is ancient dust, which you say is worthless, any different from contemporary dust, which is also a worthless?

In other words, is the "ancient dust" Adam was created from any different than the contemporary dust we see today? If that answer is yes, what properties of the "ancient dust" are different?

Elphaba

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value.

What do you mean by "ancient dust?"

How is ancient dust, which you say is worthless, any different from contemporary dust, which is also a worthless?

In other words, is the "ancient dust" Adam was created from any different than the contemporary dust we see today? If that answer is yes, what properties of the "ancient dust" are different?

Elphaba

I got a feeling this isn't the kind of dust that Lemon Pledge would solve.....

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value.

What do you mean by "ancient dust?"

How is ancient dust, which you say is worthless, any different from contemporary dust, which is also a worthless?

In other words, is the "ancient dust" Adam was created from any different than the contemporary dust we see today? If that answer is yes, what properties of the "ancient dust" are different?

Elphaba

I got a feeling this isn't the kind of dust that Lemon Pledge would solve.....

Palerider: I have blocked some posts and would not have seen anything but for your post. You are indeed correct the ancient term that translates into modern English as dust was symbolic and you are also correct in your understanding that Lemon Pledge will not solve or change that which is truly worthless - it might smell better thought.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value.

What do you mean by "ancient dust?"

How is ancient dust, which you say is worthless, any different from contemporary dust, which is also a worthless?

In other words, is the "ancient dust" Adam was created from any different than the contemporary dust we see today? If that answer is yes, what properties of the "ancient dust" are different?

Elphaba

I got a feeling this isn't the kind of dust that Lemon Pledge would solve.....

Palerider: I have blocked some posts and would not have seen anything but for your post. You are indeed correct the ancient term that translates into modern English as dust was symbolic and you are also correct in your understanding that Lemon Pledge will not solve or change that which is truly worthless - it might smell better thought.

The TravelerApparently I've been put on ignore by Traveler. Does anyone else know what he meant by "ancient dust," or "symbolic dust"? Or Traveler, when you read this post, as I know you will, would you mind coming out just to answer this one question?

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Apparently I've been put on ignore by Traveler. Does anyone else know what he meant by "ancient dust," or "symbolic dust"? Or Traveler, when you read this post, as I know you will, would you mind coming out just to answer this one question?

Elphaba

I would bury my head in the sand if I could only put the world on Tivo and have it email me for important events. However, I would not wish to miss posts by Elphaba or anybody else here.

From ancient dust to ancient dust, so go the days of our lives.

[Annabelli]

I believe in the creation story recounted in Genesis, about how God created everything and put them in their rightful place, but I'm not so sure I believe everything about the creation as our church explains it. Most Church's believe that the earth was created Ex Nihlo (out of nothing) But we claim that not even God can create matter, he simply organized it. He has to follow the rules, too.

As a result, creation actually means to "organize" It is this logic that other Mormons use to explain scientific discoveries that claim the earth is older than six thousand years. Basically, since God is using 'used parts' there is a good chance that those parts will date back further than the creation.

But I've always wondered how this can be. God didn't create this matter, because you can't create matter. But someone had to have made it at some point. I just can't buy into the theory that God used spare parts. I feel that God is all powerful, and thus can create whatever he likes.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there any clarifications on it? This just doesn't logically make sense.

This is just a half baked parable someone spun off of a science channel/Internet forum. We've had a lot of talks by someone who doesn't have a clue as to how much of our world is regulated by computers. While it is reasonable to acknowledge that other countries are capable of attacking our country with missles, it is unreasonable to believe that they have a "big red button." The only thing they would get by pushing the "big red button" in this day & age would be a delivery of office supplies from Staples. There are a lot of outdated science programs that are based on what once was theory or speculation. Excuse me, please; I need to "throw the big switch." Actually I'm just using the remote to turn off the TV. I hope that didn't confuse you any.

If you find a You Tube on the used parts theory, I'd like to see it in action.

[mmm12345]

Can I add some questions?

Does LDS belief that the earth is made out of recycled material or that the whole universe is made out of recycled material?

Could the idea of string theory that this universe was caused by the collision of two higher dimensional membranes that then caused the big bang that led to the creation of all matter and time in our universe. Which could be used to create a sythesis of the ideas, matter existed outside our universe (in the universe and dimensions that God exists in) but our universe was created out of nothing (as a subset of those dimensions)?

Since Quantum mechanics says the universe creates matter out of nothing, why limit God to not being able to do what the universe appears to do in accordance to the laws of nature as best we understand them?

What do you mean by "an evolutionary dead end like Creationism?"

[prisonchaplain]

FYI: Creationists do not deny that species adapt to their environments (sometimes called 'micro-evolution.') We do question whether species can actually evolve into completely different species (monkeys to humans, for example).

IMHO, the basic question is one of origins. Are we here by chance, or did God make it happen?

[mmm12345]

FYI: Creationists do not deny that species adapt to their environments (sometimes called 'micro-evolution.') We do question whether species can actually evolve into completely different species (monkeys to humans, for example).

IMHO, the basic question is one of origins. Are we here by chance, or did God make it happen?

:) :) :) I love the Creation story because as you said Chaplain it is a question of origins! Evalutionists take a larger leap of faith than we Creationists do, they just don't want to talk about it.

Last year when that case in PA between the school district that wanted to present Creation along side Evalution was going on I was just waiting for some actual science to be discussed, but once again it never made it past the "we just can't talk about God" point. They never looked at science, they never do. They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God, we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory. That's the cool part for me. All the evidence is the same. We're not looking for different bones or measurements or archeological finds, we're looking at the same stuff they are, but our theory fits and theirs is still searching for the missing bit of info that will allow for one species to become a completely different species, one origin a completely different origin. They can't find it because it never happened. Oh, I wish they would look at the evidence and the theory and just once mull it all over instead of simply dismissing it altogether because it must lead to a creator. Now, to me, that's a larger leap of faith, faith that there is no way it could have been organized by a God.

[Maureen]

FYI: Creationists do not deny that species adapt to their environments (sometimes called 'micro-evolution.') We do question whether species can actually evolve into completely different species (monkeys to humans, for example).

IMHO, the basic question is one of origins. Are we here by chance, or did God make it happen?

Maybe God made it happen through the process of evolution.

How does evolution occur? The three main mechanisms are mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. A mutation is any change in the DNA base sequence (genetic information) of a gene. However, only heritable mutations, those occurring in the gametes (reproductive cells) or the cell lineage contributing to the gametes, are involved in evolution. Such mutations, known as germinal mutations, can result from many factors, including natural background radiation, chemical mutagens and viral infection. Because only a small portion of the genetic sequence of the DNA molecule is used to code for proteins, most mutations do not result in new traits. Of the mutations which do result in new traits, most are harmful. That is, they interfere with an organisms physiology or in some other way reduce an organisms adaptability to its environment. However, sometimes just by chance, a mutation will occur which produces a trait that leaves an individual possessing it better adapted to its environment. In most cases, an individual that is better adapted to its environment, will tend to produce more offspring than an individual who is less well adapted.

Natural selection is the process by which traits that provide a reproductive advantage tend to increase in frequency in a given population over time, while traits that leave individuals at a reproductive disadvantage tend to decrease in frequency over time. A reproductive advantage may arise from differences in survival, in fertility, in rate of development, in mating success or by some other aspect of the life cycle. In fact, any trait that increases the chances that an individual will reproduce, is providing a reproductive advantage, even if this comes at the expense of the survival of the individual. For example, possessing a certain coloring pattern might increase an individuals chances of attracting a mate, but might also increase this individual's visibility to predators!

Genetic drift, is the process by which the frequencies of existing genes in a population change over time due to chance. One of two or more gene alternatives at a site on a chromosome (gene package) is known as an allele. Genetic drift occurs with all alleles, including those that result in either an increase or decrease in reproductive fitness. However, its effects are greatest with alleles that are neutral with regard to reproductive fitness. Although all such neutral alleles have an equal chance of being passed on to each subsequent generation, sampling error dictates that each allele will be passed on at a slightly different frequency than their alternatives. Over time this will lead to a change in the overall frequency of each allele. Eventually, all but one of the alleles will be eliminated from the gene pool. The impact genetic drift has on a population's genetic makeup, is inversely proportional to the size of the population. In other words, the smaller the population, the greater the impact.

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Maureen, ironically, some Intelligent Design folks may agree with you. However mmm says, to even discuss the theory of Design hints at God, and is automatically dismissed as scientific heresy.

IMHO, Christians were indeed narrow and hysterical in the Scopes era. Today, the other side seems to have returned the favor.

[Annabelli]

Making a comparison of Religion vrs Evolution is similar to making the comparison of Free Agency vrs Imagination.

The thing to ponder about evolution is why do we still have the earlier life forms existing. If birds evolved from fish, why do we still have fish? If we evolved from apes, why do we still apes? Was there only a certain type of species in these life forms that were able to evolve? It's hard to believe in the concept of evolution when you are standing in the middle of the Zoo.

It's pretty easy to believe in evolution if you are just comparing pictures. But when you are standing face to face with an ape, Big Joe and Hollywood seem to be the only link to evolution.

I don't believe E.T. was preparing us for visitors from another planet. I do believe that E.T. was helping us to better understand gifted/talented people...do not destroy that which you do not understand or envy.

[Elphaba]

I love the Creation story because as you said Chaplain it is a question of origins! DoEvalutionists take a larger leap of faith than we Creationists do, they just don't want to talk about it.

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.

Last year when that case in PA between the school district that wanted to present Creation along side Evalution was going on I was just waiting for some actual science to be discussed, but once again it never made it past the "we just can't talk about God.

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.

They never looked at science, they never do.

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.

They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion

Of course they did. You would rather they break the law?

and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God,

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?

we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory. That's the cool part for me. All the evidence is the same.

What evidence is the same?

We're not looking for different bones or measurements or archeological finds, we're looking at the same stuff they are, but our theory fits and theirs is still searching for the missing bit of info that will allow for one species to become a completely different species, one origin a completely different origin. They can't find it because it never happened. Oh, I wish they would look at the evidence and the theory and just once mull it all over instead of simply dismissing it altogether because it must lead to a creator. Now, to me, that's a larger leap of faith, faith that there is no way it could have been organized by a God.

There are many scientists who have looked at Intelligent Design and have rejected it, many with disgust.

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?

What information do you have that the scientists evidence is the same as the creationist’s evidence? My question is a sincere one

Elphaba

[lds_mormon]

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

I actually don't know how true this is. To my understanding, there is no law against students talking about religion during class. It may get them in trouble with the teacher for interupting their lesson, or getting off-topic, but there is no law against it.

Separation of Church and State just means that the State can not sponsor a particular religion, in other words, our religious organizations are supposed to have no say in how the country is run. Even carrying on personal conversations with teachers is not against the law.

[AnthonyB]

I have no problems believing in evolution and Genesis, one is how and the other is why.

Proving evolution to be true IMHO is just proving that God did such a good job creating the universe that he doesn't have to keep tinkering to keep it running.

Elphaba,

If you want Intelligent Design presented from Scientific rather than faith based perspective (or should I say a non Christian faith one) can I suggest you read one of the books by Paul Davies, you may not agree with his conclusions but at least you'll see that there is a reasonable arguement behind it.

[Traveler]

Maureen, ironically, some Intelligent Design folks may agree with you. However mmm says, to even discuss the theory of Design hints at God, and is automatically dismissed as scientific heresy.

IMHO, Christians were indeed narrow and hysterical in the Scopes era. Today, the other side seems to have returned the favor.

Just something quick for a friend. Most scientists can accept the idea of intelligence behind the evolution of the universe and life on earth but stop short with the idea that it all started 6000 years ago. Most of my colleges understand the problems of the "event horizon" as it relates the size of the universe being too big and the containment problems for the "Big Bang" theory.

We can see things in open space that are more than 6000 light years away and things that are separated by more than 6000 light years. As long as the 6000 years is part of any creation theory it will automatically be dismissed as scientific heresy.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

I think the Creation story can be appreciated as a glimpse at how primitive man was able to help explain God's methodology. It was of course wrong, but is it the voice of a long past oral tradition and should be respected as such.

[mmm12345]

[

<div class='quotemain'>I love the Creation story because as you said Chaplain it is a question of origins! DoEvalutionists take a larger leap of faith than we Creationists do, they just don't want to talk about it.

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.

Last year when that case in PA between the school district that wanted to present Creation along side Evalution was going on I was just waiting for some actual science to be discussed, but once again it never made it past the "we just can't talk about God.

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.

They never looked at science, they never do.

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.

They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion

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.

and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God,

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.

we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory. That's the cool part for me. All the evidence is the same.

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.

We're not looking for different bones or measurements or archeological finds, we're looking at the same stuff they are, but our theory fits and theirs is still searching for the missing bit of info that will allow for one species to become a completely different species, one origin a completely different origin. They can't find it because it never happened. Oh, I wish they would look at the evidence and the theory and just once mull it all over instead of simply dismissing it altogether because it must lead to a creator. Now, to me, that's a larger leap of faith, faith that there is no way it could have been organized by a God.

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

[Traveler]

I think the Creation story can be appreciated as a glimpse at how primitive man was able to help explain God's methodology. It was of course wrong, but is it the voice of a long past oral tradition and should be respected as such.

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

[mmm12345]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think the Creation story can be appreciated as a glimpse at how primitive man was able to help explain God's methodology. It was of course wrong, but is it the voice of a long past oral tradition and should be respected as such.

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