Genesis (which I assume is true... forms the basis of my logic). I can't find anything that would ultimately contradict it.
Naturalism/Materialism (also an assumption) assumes there are only "natural" causes of things. I suppose you could fly in a space craft for billions of years and exhaust all efforts to find an example of life not coming from non-life and information not coming from a mind. But short of that, it is already confirmed to be impossible. No one can provide one example to the contrary. You are welcome to believe in that sort of thing if you want, it's just not science. It's a religion, and not a very good one. It's like trying to find a book that has no author or being told to sit in the corner of a round room. Some concepts are just impossible, and can be proved to be so in a number of ways.
Method of speciation? The same one we observe today of course, breeding and speciation within kinds. No one has ever observed evolution in action outside of "kinds". Evolution outside of "kinds" is a RELIGION, much the same as the ruthless one we all escaped from where deviation form the party line was severely criticized & dealt with harshly by the elders - the agents of the cult.
I cannot help but notice that after nearly 18 years on this forumn, many of the most critical posters of Creation are former elders who have a history of bullying. They get really bent out of shape when interacting with someone who chooses to believe differently than them. Their deviant, anti-social behavior has apparently followed them into their new paradigm. But, I digress.
Space time and matter all came into existence at the same time... most everyone agrees with this. I say, they were inventions born in the mind of God, who by necessity must exist outside of our 3 dimensional space-time universe. Theologians and Philosophers call this type of God a Transcendent God.... meaning that he transcends our space time experience. In other words, things like "before" and "after" cannot be applied to His experience as some sort of limitation since they are inventions of his.... just like Genesis states.
This is a satisfying answer to me. It fits with the order and precision of the known universe and explains how there could be a "First Cause" in a cause and effect universe such ours. Effects do do appear without a previous cause. Yet, how can this be if the universe had a beginning? The assumption of a Transcendent God satisfies this apparent contradiction.
We all have the same evidence, but we have different assumptions before we start to examine it. That's just the way it is.
When the word science is used, most folks think of the scientific method...where things can be replicated. This method works in the present and can be projected into the future. When dealing with the past, it's not nearly as straight forward. Some say historical science is a misnomer, and will never escape the theory category.
I also have a theory: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
What are your thoughts on the two scientists I posted about earlier who became creationists after studying the facts? Do you think their experience should cause us to examine the way we use the terms "science" and "religion"?
[Quote]: A few years ago Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Both had been evolutionists and lifelong atheists. After making certain assumptions about the requirements for the origin of the simplest cell imaginable, they calculated the probability of the necessary protein enzymes arising by chance on this planet in five billion years. The probability turned out to be one chance out of the number one followed by 40,000 zeros! 41 [That's more molecules that there are in the universe]
This is flatly zero, so they calculated the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe, assuming that every star in the universe (about 100 billion times 100 billion) has a planet like the earth and that the universe is 20 billion years old. For all practical purposes, according to their results the probability is not insensibly different than zero.
Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747! One is free to believe that, of course, but it should not be called science.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are now saying that wherever life exists in the universe it had to be created. Wickramasinghe has stated that this evidence constitutes empirical evidence for the existence of God (they are not biblical creationists, since neither believes the Genesis account of creation, but they believe life had to be created).
Did Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe become creationists because of their religion? Obviously not, for they were both atheists when they began their study. They became creationists in spite of the religious beliefs they held at that time. Most evolutionists assert that to hold a belief in creation is religion. According to this view, then, when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in ignorance of the facts, held to an evolutionary view of the origin of life, that was proper science; but the moment the scientific evidence convinced them that life could not have arisen naturally, therefore life had to be created supernaturally, their views instantly ceased to be science and became religion! [Of course this is absurd]
Other scientists, such as Yockey, 42 Salisbury, 43 Coppedge, 44 and Wilder-Smith 45 have come to similar conclusions or have expressed serious doubts. A spontaneous evolutionary origin of life can be positively excluded based on the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics and the laws of probability. The theory of an evolutionary origin of life is Twentieth Century mythology.