Evolution OR Creation?

by Brummie 183 Replies latest members adult

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Abbadon,

  I will bring up previous post to clearify the issues:

  My proposal

  :

  Atheists who argue about the scientific inaccuracy of the Bible, and fail to take into account the purpose of Scripture. Since they think God is suppose to be giving scientific account in Genesis about how he made the universe and populated the earth with life..

  I would like to propose that the critics of Genesis (the first three chapters), explain what is the purpose of Genesis accurately? First.

  And after explaining purpose of Genesis, to produce a model, that would be an improvement over Genesis the first three chapters, and all the while keeping in mind,, the cultural setting, and the concept prevalent at the time. Any takers????

  posted 9/23/03 10:11

  I gave further clearification as Alan requested:

  The book of Genesis is the first part of the Torah or Pentateuch more spacifically. The torah is written as a contract document. A contract between the nation of Israel and God the creator. This follows contractorial form that was common at the time in the near east. It is a contract written primarily, if not exclusively for the Isrealites, so it would have to be in concepts they they could understand. It would show them squarely, their relationship to the originator of the contract. In the beginning of the contract as is the first three chapters of Genesis, the "status" must be clearly defined. Namely God is "Creator" of everything, and everything else is "creation".

  In forming this model contract one must remember: The Israelites were polytheistic, in their concepts like their neighbors, they had to be shown squarely, that there was only one God, and all other forces of nature, or natural objects were not "Diety", in order to enter into this contract intelligently.

  Language and language usage at the time Genesis was written should figure prominently in our "model". In ancient times,when Genesis was written, they spoke very metaphorically. Greek culture with its language to express abstract thought so well, had not yet arrived and was still about 800+years in the future. The Hebrews had little or no words for abstract thoughts so they had to paint a picture, or tell a story, storytelling was common. Reading ancient documents archaeologists will tell you the story is not the message but just a vehicle that is used to convey the message, the story is just the wrapper or vehicle of the message. This was the common means of communication at the time, according to archaeologists.

  Good luck Alan!

  posted 9/23/03 14:05

  Your posted rendition:

  In the begining God was alone and was all.

  Then God clapped his hands, and called into being creatures of the spirit to act as his servants and messengers.

  And God wove a basket without walls, and filled the basket with a void. All was silent and dark within the void, as neither sound nor light were know. And God sang a song of power, and his servants sang with him, and a seed came to be in the centre of the void, smaller than a mustard grain but heavier than all the mountains. And at the end of God's first song, the seed burst forth as a volcano bursts forth, and all that we see and are was as dust scattered through the void.

  I would like to make this small observatio, the Israelites probably knew nothing about a volcano. They weren't world travelers.They would not have the foggiest idea of what you are saying.

  But all was chaos at the end of God's first song, so God sang a second song of power, and his servants sang with him, and from the dust of the void stars formed and gathered together as people gather together, tribes of stars that we can still see in the sky as they were in that day.

  And God saw it was good.

  And then God sang again, a third song of power, and his servants sang with him, and the dust that was left in the void was gathered to the stars as their children, and formed into the smaller lights of the night sky that move in the sky, falling ever inwards to their star but never reaching it, which we can still see in the skies to this day, dancing to God's song.

  I think this would cause great confusion, for they had no accurate idea of what the cosmos was, remember,,they had no telescopes, or any idea of the laws of gravity, to them "up was up" and "down was down" to introduce the idea of falling inward, would cause great confusion in their minds, as it was completely foreign to them. In the Genesis account, God is not trying to give an accurate worldview scientifically speaking, the intent is merely showing them that He's the creator of all, and that the stars(what ever they were), the earth, the moon, all these natural things are not gods or deity, but creations that are not to be worshiped. You, on the other hand are interested in teaching them science, which is clearly not the intention of the creator in the Genesis account. For it would cause too much confusion, and not necessary for the intention of the Genesis account namely to enter into a contract with the Creator.

  And God looked upon our star, and saw the light of the star reach the third of the star's children, our home, and he watched and sang, and his servants sang with him, sang a fourth song of power that made the light of the star falling on the third planet blossom into life. And god continued to sing, and the life that sprang forth at first was tiny and simple, as the things made by a child. But as God sang, the fruit of the Earth grew intricate in design and multitudinous, just as the works of a man grow over time as he developes into his maturity.

  Your reference to the earth as being the third planet, would really throw them for a loop. Can't you seee why God would stick basically to their current worldview minus the diety aspect of it. By getting too scientific and too exact in explanation to these primative people, would not be of help them to enter into this contract with Him, but would only confuse things.

  Finally god sang the song of men, and his servants sang with him, and some animals looked to the skies for the first time with eyes not of beasts, but of men, and they saw the beauty that god had wrought and praised him, as he revealed himself to them.

  And God spoke to his children, man, and bade them live in peace and harvest the Earth's bounty, and to render to him due praise.

  But one of god's servants, a creature of the spirit, grew jealous of the praise rendered to God, and he went down to the Earth and spoke cunning words in the ears of our forefathers so that they no longer praised God. And our forefathers were foolish, for they harkend unto this wicked servant tales, and did not go to God for council but sought their own council.

  So God spoke to man and said unto him "Rule yourselves if that be your will, and we shall see if you have chosen rightly, and I shall give Earth, my creation, over to man for a time.

  But God did not abandon his children to the wiles of the evil servant, for the evil servant was thrown from God's courtyard with all those that had stood with him in his deciets. Knowing aforetime his doom the evil servant blamed man for his downfall and determined to plauge him all his days. SO God chose a people to set above all as an example so that when man again turned to God he might once again bring them to his bosom.

  This is the book of the history of God's people.

  posted 9/24/03 02:40

  By your trying to teach science to a primitive people, you are confusing the issues at hand, which was namely entering into a contract with the Creator of everything.
• 

  funkyderek

  Frankie, how can we tell which creation stories were just made up by humans and which ones were made up by gods wanting to enter into contracts with humans?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Derrick,

  Frankie,

  Do you at least accept that we can apply your standards to any ancient writings with the same effects? If they're not meant to be literally true (regardless of how they appear), then they're immune to any tests of their veracity. There is really no way to distinguish between a myth that's inspired by god and one that's made up by humans.

  Exactly, I think we should apply it the same way to ancient writings.

  This is the point I'm trying to make, we need to take what we are learning from other ancient writting and use it to help us understand the Bible.

  The Bible uses myth to teach, the same way ancient cultures used it. Storytelling as used in ancient times, were used to teach important concepts, the details of the story were not true in every detail they didn't have to be true, for they were just the vehicle or the wrapping the "message was inside the story" and "not the story itself".

  That was just the common way ancient cultures communicate then.

  after
• 

  frenchbabyface

  PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!
• 

  funkyderek

  Frankie, once again you seem to have missed the point (and mis-spelt my name!):

  The Bible uses myth to teach, the same way ancient cultures used it. Storytelling as used in ancient times, were used to teach important concepts, the details of the story were not true in every detail they didn't have to be true, for they were just the vehicle or the wrapping the "message was inside the story" and "not the story itself".

  That's fine, but do you agree then that the bible is no different from any other ancient myth? If so, then I'm not sure what point of view you're trying to defend. If not, then why not?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  derek,

  Here is a cut and paste, the site offers much more info, that is very similar to my own about the Bible use of myth.

  http://crain.english.mwsc.edu/bible_as_literature/new_page_3.htm

  The Israelite account of history begins with Abraham?s family?s migration from Mesopotamia to Canaan. Students need to know that this dating is relatively late in the history of the Near East; indeed, in the history of humankind. One of the thorniest problems in approaching the Bible is that of dealing with the time covered between the first eleven chapters of Genesis and history as we know it and have evidence for. Quite obviously, I?m hedging concerning a major controversy: between what science says and what many believe the Bible states about the span of time between creation and contemporary existence. Evidence of Paleolithic flint cultures have been found throughout the Near East dating back to two hundred thousand years ago; perhaps People of the Covenant states it most succinctly: "?before the earliest epic of known human experience lie aeons of slow development and maturation of individuals and societies" (Oxford, 1996: 78). Jericho, for example, evidenced civilization as early as 8000 BCE, perhaps due to its perennial water supply." In short, evidence points to civilization at least five thousand years before Abraham, pointedly marked by broad scale wanderings, restlessness, and advancement. In short, Israel is rather late upon the scene of human history. Part of the problem of historical dating originates in a blurring of the general and particular?in, for example, the idea of a first human and a concrete Adam or Eve. The danger is that of erring too much on the side of the abstract and general as contrasted to the historical and specific. Recognizing this, one is poised for an entirely different approach to Bible study than that which is ordinarily taken: an approach, I might add, that should not be threatening to religious stances and commitments taken. It?s rather obvious history had to have a "first man" as well as a concrete "Adam." When both are understood and accepted simultaneously, then the Bible can be reapproached as the significant work of literature that it is while it continues its important function as foundation for faith. In fact, as literature, what most persuades one to the idea of Divine Authorship is that symbol and theme in the Bible unite with an intricacy that lies beyond mere artifice and suggests authority well beyond ordinary human capacities.

  When it comes to Babylonian mythology, certainly a similarity exists in the creation stories?but again, with the difference that the God is Genesis is a moral God; the Babylonian mythology, also, embraced the annual fertility cycle. The Enumma Elish celebrated the annual New Year Festival. In the beginning, they believed only primeval chaos existed, personified as Apsu and Tiamat. From these gods stemmed other gods representing the natural elements. The forces of chaos were subdued and order created. From the body of Tiamat, Marduk made one half into the solid sky and the other half into the earth. The gods were divided between heaven and earth, and humans became slaves of menial tasks for the gods.

  God?s control in Genesis is deliberate and purposeful?and creation is once rather than cyclical. The heavenly bodies are not deities but markers of day and night. Human beings are almost destroyed, not because they make too much noise as in the Babylonia epic but because they disobey; always in Genesis, Yahweh is one and absolute in demanding love and justice. The theme, par excellence, is that of responsible relationship?first to God and then to others. Humans are made in God?s image and hence, they are of equal value and importance. Human sexuality is part of God?s plan for harmony: one sex without the other is incomplete, and companionship is the ideal. Relationships are broken; human experience is marred by exploitation, disharmony, and suspicion. The delicate balance between people, nature, and God is broken when individuals try to become controllers of their own destiny.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Here some more that you might find interesting:

  Myth : Ostensibly historical events that serve to unfold part of the world view of a people or nation; myth organizes, shapes, or provides patterns and principles as opposed to strict fact. As myth, the Bible is concerned with explaining universal truths, and providing an explanation of origins and destinies. Even early history, if we believe Herodotus, contains myth. Another definition or approach--anonymous; supernatural accounting for natural events; makes concrete and particular a perception of human beings or a cosmic view; a projection of social patterns onto a supernatural level; explains divinity, creation and religion; demonstrates human perception of deepest truths; gives order and frame of meaning to human experience; reveals archetypal imagination embodying and suggests universality; a narrative stirring us with the strange and familiar, contains primordial ritual and ceremony; a repository of racial memories; a structure of unconsciously held value systems; an expression of the general beliefs of a race, social class or nation; a unique embodiment of ideology (306). Genesis 1-11 (White 22) introduces two creation stories (1:1-2;4 and 2:5-25), the fall (3:1-24), first brothers Cain and Abel (4:1-24), and Seth (4:25-26), the first man's descendants (5:1-32), the Nephilim (6:1-4), the flood (6:5-9:17), Noah's descendants (9:18-32), the tower of Babel (11:1-9), and the genealogy of Abraham (11:10-32).

  Other examples of myth include Yahweh's fight with the dragon (Isa. 27. 1, 51. 9), Sheol, that fearful monster which, with open jaws, swallows up men, and from which Yahweh alone can rescue (Psalms 49.15, 86.13) , the morning star which tried to set its throne above that of God and was hurled into the depths (Isa. 14. 12ff.), a primitive man who listened at a meeting held by God (Job).

  Much smacks on fairy tale: foundling who lay naked and bare, but finally rose, through marriage, to a high position (Ez. 26.4 ff), the unlucky man who escapes the danger of a lion only to meet a bear, or who is bitten by a serpent in the safety of his own house (Amos 5.19), a dreadful sword from which there is no escape and from which only God can bring rest (Ez. 21), of the wonderful tree with no equal (Ez. 31.4 ff), all kinds of animals with the power of speech (Gen. 3.1, Num. 22.30), the giving of a choice of wishes (1 Kings 3.5, 2 Kings 2.9, 4.2) or the granting of a child, long desired, to a couple.

  Legends instruct and explain smoothly, simply, in their own way, not with learned discussion and profound thoughts, and provide answers to all kinds of questions: (Kuhl, The Old Testament) Why is the area around the Salt Sea dead and deserted? Legend knows that the vale of Siddim was here (Gen. 14.3), a garden of the Lord like the land of Egypt (Gen. 13.10). The high stone pillar on the Jebel Usdum is Lot's wife (Gen. 19.26); the serpent crawls on its belly and eats dust (Gen. 3.14); the sexes are attracted to each other by an act of God (Gen. 2.22 ff); cultic custom of not eating thigh muscle (Gen. 32.32), meaning of Abram's name (Gen. 17.5); explanation for Isaac's name (he laughed--Gen. 17.17, 18.12, 21.6).

  In the early books, we find narrative history, but within that history, we also find myth and legend. Paul Tillich in the Dynamics of Faith tells us "Myths are symbols of faith combined in stories about divine-human encounters" and then defines myth as using "material from our ordinary experience. It puts the stories of the gods into the framework of time and space although it belongs to the nature of the ultimate to be beyond time and space" (49). The nature of myth is such that the gods reveal themselves under a fate "which is beyond everything that is" (48), organized into hierarchies, sometimes into a trinity of gods, a duality of them, or into savior-gods who mediate, sometimes sharing the suffering and death of humans (49). Tillich goes on to point out that a criticism of myth has been its division of the divine but that even when only one god is present, this "one God is an object of mythological language" (49). Tillich then summarizes: "all the stories in which divine-human interactions are told are considered as mythological in character" (51). The reader should note that such a definition of myth merely confirms its existence in human consciousness and argues myth must be accepted as myth, not science; that is, science cannot address the substance of myth, the existence of the divine or the "beyond space and time." Myths are not deceptions or untruths but vehicles for expressing universal insights into the nature of the world and human society (Harris 5).

  Acknowledging myth as present in the Bible frees the reader in several important ways. As historical narrative, the Bible introduces its reader to a time before formal history, "to a people who lived thousands of years ago and shows us how much we are like our ancestors and how much they have had to do with our own forming as a part of the human family" (White 2). Importantly, though, the Bible is not secular history but primarily a religious book in which its authors speak through the perspective of faith (2). To try to reduce the Bible to history is to engage in literalness and to deny the function of symbol and myth to point beyond themselves to something else; as Tillich remarks, such literalness "deprives God of... ultimacy" (52). The historian is always concerned with what really happened, and certainly, much did happen, but the case is rightfully made that its authors were interested more in the theological importance of what happened than in the happenings themselves. Reading: Genesis 1-11 Primeval history, universal in scope; Divine act brings humanity and history into existence, enables humanity to exist, multiply, diversify, and disperse upon the earth. Belongs to the Pentateuch, the first five books traditionally ascribed to the authorship of Moses; the Pentateuch is narrative which extends from the creation of the universe into the entrance of one people, the Hebrew, into their "promised land" or Canaan, the people coming to be known as the Israelites
• 

  mattkoo

  Hi Jack,

  Thanks for your reply.

  > Macro evolution or speciation (as it is also commonly known) has definitely been observed and proven in multiple settings. As a quick link > please chck out a few examples at Talk Origins here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and also here >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

  I'll certainly give you the fact that it has been observed to the point where a particular species has varied to the point where it is no longer able to reproduce with what would seem like another of it's own species.

  The kind of macro evolution that I'm trying to knock however is the kind that says primordial soup to man.

  From my understanding the main problem here is that evolution is teaching something that requires an increase in functional genetic information. for a fish to be able to develop lungs to breath air and sprout legs to walk on land requires that it's functional genetic information increase so as to be able to take on these new features. This is the kind of macroevolution that has never been observed and from my understanding is the very type of evolution claimed by evolutionists.

  > This is another case of mixing evolution vs creationism and theism with atheism. That being said many items in the Bible have been shown > to be false - eg. the Flood. Any honest believer has to simply have problems with the global flood account contained in the Bible.

  Well actually there is some evidence for a global flood.

  1. One of the evidences for the literal event of Noah's flood is the fact that almost every culture has a tradition of a global flood. Over 200 of these traditional stories have been collected from around the globe with their own slight variations. They all describe this same great catastrophic global flood where there was a favored family.

  If you put yourself in Noah's shoes I think you would have been in awe of the things that you saw and experienced and that you would have passed it on to your children and your children's children and so forth.

  After the flood the world was repopulated by Noah and his family and as the years went on, the people spread over the world with the same basic history of the flood stuck in their mind. Thus the biblical account explains well how it is that this story is known around the globe and note before you all jump on me and say they got it from the bible I mentioned it is their own traditional variation of the story established well before bibles hit printing presses and were in wide distribution.

  2. Another evidence is the population of the world. The current human population is around 6 billion people. To get today's world population from Noah's three sons and their wives after the Flood around 4,500 years ago, would require less than 0.5% per year growth. We know from the bible and from our own knowledge of the world that there have been many large families. Shem had five sons, Ham had four and Japheth had seven. If we assume they had the same number of daughters then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. The extra numbers are what account for human losses due to war, strife, struggle and death.

  Evolution claim that mankind evolved from apes or some other common ancestor about 3.5 million years ago. If we shoot on the leaner side and say that mankind evolved from apes just 1 million years ago. If the population had grown at just one hundredth of a percent ie 0.01% per year there would 10 to the power of 43 people today.

  The entire earth's surface is only 1.5 x 10 to the power of 14 square metres, obviously there would not be enough room for everyone. Note that with the evolutionary claim of 3.5 million years this number looks much worse. I got the value of 3.5 million from the follow article.

  http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/apestoman/

  I have also read that evolutionists claim there was a stone age of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence has shown that people buried their dead, often with artefacts. If there were constant population of 1 million people alive over that period of time they should have buried 4 billion bodies + many artefacts. If there were 10 million we would increase this number to 40 billion bodies and many artefacts. The number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this Stone Age scenario were correct.

  The above calculations and information was gathered from www.answersingenesis.org.

  3. The oldest living trees in the world are only around 4700 years old. These trees are 4700 years old and are still alive so this shows that the capability to live on longer is there. How much longer we don't know since there aren't any older. Isn't it a nice coincidence that the age of the oldest tree happens to fit nicely in with the timeline of the biblical record of Noah's flood.

  http://www.distant.ca/UselessFacts/fact.asp?ID=139
  http://biology.about.com/library/bldyknow102199.htm

  Also the Great barrier reef in Australia is the largest coral reef in the world. At the observed growth rate they estimate it is around 4,200 years old. Why aren't there any older coral reefs in the world? This also fits in with the timeline of the biblical flood.

  4. In 1609 at Hoorn, in Holland, the Netherlandish Mennonite, P. Jansen, produced a vessel

  following the dimensions of the ark, only to a smaller scale, whereby he proved it's dimensions are well adapted for floating, and would carry a cargo greater by one-third than any other form of like cubical content.

  This revolutionized ship building. By 1900 every large vessel on the high seas was definitely inclined toward the proportions of Noah's ark (as verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping," The World Almanac).

  Isn't this interesting that the ships we use today are based on the dimensions of Noah's ark due to the fact that it had superior sea worthiness and could hold a greater capacity than any design that man had come up with. This is due to the fact that God himself gave Noah the design for the ark (Genesis 6:14-16).

  5. Fossilization is fairly difficult. We don't see it happening as a common event in the natural world today. Yet we have a great number of fossil specimens in our museums today, numbered at over 250,000,000. A number of these fossils discovered all over the world have shown evidence of rapid burial due to the completeness and detail of the fossil which shows that the organism did not have time to decompose. Also, many other animals, have been found buried in mass graves in twisted and contorted positions, which have suggested a violent and rapid burial over massive areas. These observations along with the occurrence of fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock show strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly. Futhermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide catastrophic flood.

  Side note: also even with the great number of fossils found there have been no undisputed transitional forms found in the fossil record, which darwin had predicted geologists and archeologists would eventually find. With the great number of fossils if Darwin's theory were correct we should have at least seen 10's of thousands of undisputable transition fossil forms by now.

  6. The discovery of fossilized sea shells on top of the highest mountains on earth. Not just one isolated instance but found on the Rockies, in the Himalayas, on the Atlas and the atop the Alps. Also fossilized whale skeletons have been found high atop Mt. Sanhorn, in glacial deposits in Michigan, and also in Quebec 600 feet above sea level.

  7. The presence of huge amounts of compressed coal and petroleum deposits around the world is evidence of tons of plant and animal life buried rapidly under water-laden sediment.

  > In fact I agree with much of what Marks says, his conclusions support what I have written - that we share genetic commonality with not only > Apes but also with Fish for instance. Perhaps next time you might paste the webpage you cut your arguments from: >http://www.apologeticspress.org/ nd perhaps even use your own thoughts. Otherwise, would it be adequate for me to simply cut and paste >from a page refuting Marks or Gardner? If we get down to that then we might simply get into search engine wars.

  Well you got me on this one. I was lazy and they article just worded it so well. It's no excuse however, you've challenged me to reach a higher level. I appreciate it as it is definitely for my own good and I will endeavour to practice such from now on.

  > Take care,
  > Jack.

  Yes once again, thanks for your thoughts.

  Matt.

  As the bible says in the following scriptures, it takes an entire lifetime of rejecting God to receive condemnation from Him.

  Hebrews 9:27
  27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement
  
  John 3:18
  18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

  But it only takes a few moments to acknowledge him and receive him to receive His free gift of salvation. If you are interested in God's free gift of salvation, here are some verses from scripture.
  
  Romans 10:9-10, That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
  
  Eph 2:8, For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
  
  1 Cor 15:1-4, John 3:16

  Also, I haven't forgotten about everyone else. I was kinda overwhelmed by all the responses that I received. I'll eventually get around to everyone but please be patient as there is just one of me and many of you.
• 

  mattkoo

  Hi Rem,

  >LOL! Sure, creationism may be a theory in the colloquial sense of the word, but it's certainly not a scientific theoretical model. If you >believe it is then you should have no problem informing us of the many accurate predictions that the Creation theory makes. A theory that >makes no predictions is not falsifiable. A theory that is not falsifiable is not useful and is not scientific.

  The scientific method consists of six steps:
  1) observation
  2) proposal of a question or problem
  3) hypothesis (an educated guess)
  4) experimentation
  5) theory (a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)
  6) natural law (a theory shown to be valid on a universal scale).

  (Tom M. Graham, Biology, the Essential Principles (Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1982))

  According to the above definition, Evolution cannot be proven through the scientific method because it fails at step 1 since evolutionary species changes supposedly occurred in the past. Thus, evolution does not reach the stage of being a theory. I'll grant you that the creation view does not fall into this category either.

  However, not all fields of science use the scientific method. Eg. Forensic science does not use it as the crime can no longer be observed. However, forensic science is still a legitimate science. The two main divisions of science that science can be separated into are operational science and origin science. Operational science dealing with the repeatable, observable present and origin science dealing with singular events of the past. Forensic science as well as creation science and evolutionary science fall into this last category.

  > rem
  God Bless,

  Matt.
• 

  mattkoo

  Hi Abaddon,

  ** I beg to differ Evolution is a theoretical model just as Creationism is.

  >I would argue that general theory evolution by natural selction more closely conforms to what we can observe and measure around us than >any creation theory I have examined.

  I agree with Natural selection (ie survival of the fittest aka micro evolution) and have no problems with this. The evolutionistic theory that we began as primordial soup has many problems which I'll get into later as I believe someone asks about it further down.

  >Please provide data that shows your favourate theory to have greater evidence for it than the general theory of evolution - such theory also >has to have at least the same level of speculative theories regarding original origins of the universe as evolution requires, as an assumption >of a designer is presuppositionalist (but more of that later).

  Ahh, here you seem to be pointing out the scientific explanation ie. Big Bang to explain the origins of the universe over the biblical creation account.

  Let me point out here some of the problems associated with the Big Bang (theory, not sure if I can call this one a theory either after the exchange with Rem.)

  - It breaks the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

  The Big Bang Theory has suggested in science textbooks and journals that all the matter for the entire universe popped into existance out of nothing. Here they seem to be saying that nothing exploded and here we are. The stunning logic and scientific reasoning here just jumps out at you ;). This obviously contradicts the 1st Law.

  - It breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which explains that things tend toward disorder. This is also known as the Law of Increased Entropy. The Big Bang Theory suggests that out of the chaos of the Big Bang it magically managed to neatly align itself and create a delicate order and balance in this galaxy suitable to support life. Every explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history has shown that a "big bang" ie. explosion has only caused disorder and disarray, not a delicately balanced order as we have. This obviously contradicts the second law.

  - It breaks the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum which explains that if something is spinning when it blows up all the fragments will likewise continue spinning in the same direction.

  Due to the fact that everything in the universe is spinning ie planets, stars, galaxies etc. and the fact that it would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning, the Big Bang advocates claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything was spinning as it flung out. The problem here is that Venus, Uranus and Pluto are spinning backwards also some moons around Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are orbiting in both directions. This is an obvious contradiction to the law of conservation of angular momentum.

  Here are some of the evidences for the existance of God.

  * Everything that moves has a force which made it move. The universe moves and thus there must have been a beginning intial force to set everything in motion. The bible explains that the unmoved mover is God.
  * The bible says that God created the heavens and the earth. The bible is backed up by fulfilled prophecy and historical reliability (as shown through accurate transmission over thousands of years and numerous archeological discoveries) to show it is the true word of God.
  * When greatest minds the world has ever known, throughout history outspokenly believe in God. And when some of these guys study the bible in great depth to try to discover the knowledge of God, there is something more to the bible than first meets the eye.
  http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/20000122.htm
  Isaac Newton - Discovered the laws of Gravity, invented calculus.
  Albert Einstein - Formulated the theory of relativity.
  Nicolas Copernicus - founder of modern astronomy
  Johannes Kepler - founder of physical astronomy
  Robert Boyle - father of modern chemistry
  Lord Kelvin - Established the laws of thermodynamics
  Louis Pasteur - father of bacteriology
  John Dalton - father of atomic theory
  Gregory Medel - father of genetics
  Michael Faraday - Invented electrical generator and developed foundational
  concepts in electricity and magnetism.

  There are various other points here that I could go into eg intelligent design and information theory as well as some of the other philosophical arguments. But alas it's getting late and I need to sleep. Sorry, I'll be back to continue on with the rest of your post and the other posts as well.

  Until next time everyone.

  Good Night (actually it's morning already),
  Matt.