ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Evolution versus Creationism

Evolution versus creationism. Which view is correct and why?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Wisdom Bible Quiz
 ---Sammy on 6/8/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (10)

Post a New Blog

Simply put: God created man in the image of Him. Therefore, we are not monkey, fish, bat, or insect at all. God created His creatures everyone on that particular day. Noting evolved! Faith is not science. Science is man's way of discovering what already is!
---Denise on 6/9/09

Gregg survival of the fittest is observable fact, but it always results in loss of genetic information, the opposite of microbe-to-man evolution.

For example for a reptile to evolve into a bird would require massive amounts of completely new, unique genetic information, to grow wings, feathers and a totally different lung system.

You made a good point, how could a reptile survive for eons while waiting to become a bird? For eons it wouldn't be bird, or reptile, therefore defenceless, unable to hunt-not fit enough to survive! As the two lung systems are completely different it would not be able to breathe!

Nonetheless millions of years will not create the massive amount of necessary new and unique genetic information.
---Warwick on 5/12/09

Things evolve so they can become stronger and better equipped to survive. Only the amount of time it takes to evolve into something more suitable to survive takes too long, and chances are it would have died out. For example how long would it take for a land based animal to evolve into a bird that can fly. so for millions of years, this thing would have these two useless things on it that provide nothing helpful to survive. If it could survive over the course of a few millions of years, they might become wings. The bird would have never made it before it could fly.
---Gregg on 5/11/09

Sam over time various others have made similar claims as yours but have disappeared when asked to substantiate what they have claimed.

For something to be scientifically proven it must be tested in the present, by the scientific method. Often described as testability, observability, repeatability.

Can you propose such a test which would prove life evolved from 'non life' by naturalistic processes?

Can you scientifically test the idea one kind of creature evolved from another by naturalistic evolutionary processes?

Unless you can, what you call 'proven' is just a belief.

BTW the loss of toes or any other organ is a loss of genetic information therefore the opposite of microbe-to-man evolution.
---Warwick on 5/10/09

Obviously the answer is evolution. Whoever said that nothing about evolution is "proven" is wrong, in fact it has been proven true. Sure, you can argue that god created the universe and all the matter in it, but he sure didn't snap his fingers and create humans one day.
Can creationism explain the skeletons of Neanderthals and other species of humans from thousands of years ago? The cavemen paintings? If god created humans, why would he have allowed so many religions that didn't even believe in him?

P.S. We continue to evolve as we speak. Did you know that humans are slowly losing our pinky toes? We dont need them anymore, now that we dont climb trees for a living. Thats evolution for you.
---Sam on 5/8/09

so basically most of us agree that scienceclass is the last place to learn evolution, as creation is also noyt to be taught in scienceclass.
---Andy on 4/14/09

The Creator, HALLELUJAH! Lives in me. I do not have to worry. About it! I know my Creator. I know my Saviour. Thank you, my Lord, my God, my Saviour for your Blood which was shed on a cross at the hands of wicked men in power. Amen! Thank you Jesus.
---catherine on 4/13/09

Dave surely it isn't what we 'want to be created from', but what the Creator says we were created from. As none of us was there at the beginning why speculate on such things when the creator has explained it carefully to us?

If you are thinking of the Biblical God why not believe what He has written, rather than idle speculations?

Do you speculate so because you have imposed man's constantly changing ideas onto God's perfect and unchanging word? See Coll. 2:8

Why believe anything of God's word, as fact, if you don't believe it all? See John 3:12.
---Warwick on 4/13/09

Why in two hundred years has Darwin's theory of evolution not evolved into something other than a theory?
---Gregg on 4/9/09

I guess it depends if you want to be created from a lump of clay the God made or a fish/monkey that God made.
Maybe God made the amoeba from clay or the clay from amoeba.
I would say that God created everything, maybe from a big bang. I don't know,I wasn't there. But the important part is to know that God did it. Why, because science tells us that matter does not just appear. But faith teaches us that God can do anything.
---dave on 4/8/09

Jon all of us are free to express our opinion, however when we do it on a public forum we can be called to back up what we have said:

Scientifically speaking we cannot test anything which has happened in the past. The scientific method is based on experiment, it must be testable, observable, and repeatable. How can we test something which is claimed to have occurred in the distant past?

Evolutionists claim (for one example) that reptiles became birds 120 million years ago. How can we prove this right or wrong through the scientific method?
---Warwick on 4/3/09

I say nothing of the correctness of evolutionism. I only say that creationism, or intelligent design 'theory', is a study of text and not discovery. Evolutionism is a study of science that may be proven right or wrong. The way to prove it wrong is not to block or argue against it using creationist arguments. It should be proven wrong through greater and undeniable scientific discovery, and not biblical text.
---Jon on 4/3/09

Any of us whom God has saved, knows without a doubt, that God is our Creator. That's it! Have a great day, as unto the Lord. Drive home carefully. Don't run into any ditches.
---catherine on 3/19/09

Ed: "the answer is teach science (evolution)."

You apparently believe that evolution is science. Why? What scientific evidence can you bring to support it? (Hint: conjecture and fraud are not scientific evidence).

Are you able to answer a few questions concerning scientific evidences that disprove evolution? If not, then why are you so bold as to make such grandiose claims in favor of the evolutionary hypothesis?
---jerry6593 on 3/19/09

Ed, "Which is correct depends on your question. If your question is what to teach in science class, the answer is teach science (evolution)".
ok admitted, and let us now put this to the test, yet taking evolution according your theory. ask any evolutionist to take out every doubdtfull and not provable theory out of the schoolbooks, and you will find out evolution can be wrtten upon one page explaining why it was cancelled.NOTHING IN EVOLUTION IS PROVABLE, therfeore it is not science.
the neanderthaler as missing link is a joke. still this is proven, in Europe class 5 and 6 primary school we still show our forefathers the Neanderthaler.
---Andy on 3/19/09

Which is correct depends on your question. If your question is what to teach in science class, the answer is teach science (evolution).

If you are asking about anything supernatural, the answer is definitely not evolution. Evolution, like all science, deals with this natural world, only. Then is creation correct? I don't know. Nobody knows.

The story of the tower of babel tells me, no matter how high you stack the bricks (evidence), you can't see heaven from here anymore. Which means that creationism (creation, trying to look like science) is a dead letter. Strong faith doesn't need it, weak faith is beyond its help.

Creation may be right, creationism is wrong. Sorry.
---Ed on 3/18/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

MarkV: Yes, God created the universe in a state of maturity. Just as Adam was created as a fully mature man, just so was the universe created with light-years distant stars shining upon the earth instantaneously - with the appearance of maturity.
---jerry6593 on 3/17/09

Dear len, you said.
Creationism is presuppositionalism therefore it is religion. Evolution exercises the scientific method. Saying they are using 'evolution to disprove the Bible' is absurd.
Now that creationism is religion noone will deny. but to state that evolution is not religion because they do not expound their presupositions in Church but rather in a laboraty. now that IS elitism. join the club, but admit that the entire evolution theory is nothing but a theory invented by a few guys reputed for their antiChristian feelings and work.
EVOLUTION IS JUSTA AS MUCH RELIGION since not one pilar of evolution can be proven scientifically.
---Andy on 3/16/09

Jerry, you made a good point on the fact that death came after the fall. And, that when God created He created something from nothing. He actually spoke and it was there. Which really would make the creation of the heavens as we see it now, not each star or planet from its own beginning. And humans as adults and animals already grown, not from eggs or babies to be grown later. Tree's already grown not seeds of trees and in time grew. When God spoke the sun into being, it was as it is today though we know that age is measured in time, God ordered it at that time with that age. God perfectly created all He wanted to create. Some things we might think they were not perfect but God had a reason for them to be that way.
---MarkV. on 3/15/09

Axey: "Yes, God said he created man from dust. But he didn't say HOW he created man from dust."

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

That's how! Any more detail is beyond our ability to understand.
---jerry6593 on 3/14/09

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

StrongAxe2 In the evolutionary story there is no way of knowing what happened at the beginning- long-gone-it cannot be tested. Its not occurring today!

Conversely God has explained He created 'kinds' of creatures, very distinct from one another. These kinds now have great variety, engineered in, allowing them to adapt, within their kind, to changing conditions. Therefore God has said He did not use evolution.

Gods word in Genesis is truth, as true as His word is regarding the NT gospel. The beginning events of Genesis are the historical foundation of the gospel. If Genesis isnt historical truth neither is the gospel-see Jesus words -John 3:12

How can we observe fragments of evolutionary occurrences today' ?
---Warwick on 3/13/09

Creationest come to the table armed only with a fistful of clichs and emotion. They would throw out the clichs' become emotional, and then run. I endeavor to come to the table fortified with evidence, rationality, facts, and even maybe, possibly, even truth. I was told "Evolutionism is an insult to me. Those secular science people are all assessing things, -fossils through their natural minds, therefore they cannot understand anything anyway'"

(To me this is elitism. "We see the emperors new cloths, you cannot." Is such an elitism Christ like in the first place? In reality Creationest dismiss all science.)
---Len on 3/13/09

StrongAxe we do not need to know, nor could we understand the mind-power God used to make man from the dust. As you say, too complicated. We just need to know Adam was made from dust, not from some animal ancestor. Therefore God is saying- NO EVOLUTION HERE!

See Genesis 3:19:God says 'For dust you are and to dust you will return. Some suggest God used 'dust' to mean Adam was created from an animal ancestor. Then to be consistent they must believe he once again became this animal when dead-ridiculous.

Onlookers must notice how compromisers here fight so hard, and long, rather than accept God's word in its straightforward menaing. Therefore God's is not their ultimate authority- a correct position for a Christian?
---Warwick on 3/13/09

Evolution in general omits spirit and creation omits scientific discovery.
Evolution by layman definition primarily claims substances(things derived from the known physical element chart) began spontaneously.
Creation also by layman definition primarily claims God snapped his fingers and science is speechless to the discovery of the progression of all that exists in the known domain we call the universe.And this is the results of his action.
I disagree with both equally.
I believe energy to matter formation consumes extensive quantities of that which we call time.Likewise biologic life -all strata of detectable life requires extensive amounts of time and transformations to reach maturity.
The origin is from paradise.
---earl on 3/13/09

Send a Free Funny Valentine Ecard

"Creationists are the true scientist, the other ones, all skeptics and atheists are out to disprove the Bible."

That is an inaccurate equation. Evolution is a scientific approach, creationism has no scientific grounding in research or methodology. Creationism is presuppositionalism therefore it is religion. Evolution exercises the scientific method. Saying they are using 'evolution to disprove the Bible' is absurd.
---Len on 3/13/09


Yes, God said he created man from dust. But he didn't say HOW he created man from dust. The process involved was likely more complicated than could be stated in one sentence. It's clearly complicated enough that even today we are only scratching the surface of the complexity of life, and can't aren't in a position to duplicate it.

If I tell you "I built a house out of brick and wood", that would tell you nothing about the process, and you couldn't hope to duplicate the process yourself, unless you yourself were a builder or architect.
---StrongAxe on 3/13/09

No Vinni, change is not evolution. No creationist denies that things change (the Bible teaches this!). But the changes are in the wrong direction for evolution from goo to you via the zoo. Please desist from this bait-and-switch.

Strongaxe: God clearly told us the time frame of His creative acts, and explicitly that He made the first man from dust and the first woman from his rib.
---Ktisophilos on 3/13/09

Axey: You are wrong. God did in fact write with His own finger in stone that He "created" the heaven and the earth in six days (see Exo 20:11). Evolutionary theory requires long ages (and much death) for species to develop. The Bible tells us that no death occurred until after Adam's sin. Further, the Bible upholds instantaneous creation from nothing - not slow development of that which previously existed.

Psa 33:6,9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast.

Heb 11:3 ... the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
---jerry6593 on 3/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

StrongAxe1, we still have human reproduction occurring today,we dont have life appearing spontaneously from non-life, nor one kind (e.g. cat, dog kind) evolving into another, kind. Therefore what occurs today has no direct connection to what evolutionists claim occurred in the distant past.

The fossil record shows distinct kinds of creatures. Evolutionists claim certain fossils are transitional(one kind to another) but scant few examples exist, and evolutionists disagree strongly between themselves about them. Over time certain examples have been rejected, and new ones posed, then these were rejected, and so on. Once Neanderthals were definitely missing links between ape & human kind. Now they are cousins!
---Warwick on 3/12/09


You said: Did God use evolution in creation? He said that He did not!

In fact, Genesis says that God created the heavens and the Earth, and all things in it, but it does NOT say HOW he did these things. It does not get into specifics. Who knows? He may have used evolution, or he may have used some other mechanism - but it is just as presumptuous to say that he SAID that he did not (since there is no verse in Genesis that specifically says so), as it is to say that he did.
---StrongAxe on 3/12/09

Vinni. Adaption is indeed not equal as evolution. any life form adaptes to its sircumstances. take a 1200ad knight for instance. if one would bring that person in today he would not stand for about a half a day thhanks to all the toxics we blow dailly in the air. when america was just discoverd the small pocs and the flew devesated the Native american populations. yet today they are just as resistant as the white brother next doors, they evolved or was it simple natural adaption of the body? that evolution is a proven point and a sollid science is also a bubble.
---Andy on 3/12/09

Vinni: What you describe is Mendellian genetics (gene pool variation) - not evolution. It simply explains why your children don't all look the same and why the kittens in a litter may all look different, but NONE ever give birth to dogs. That would be evolution!

As for the domestication of wild animals, I have made pets of wild racoons and squirrels. So what? Adaptation is not evolution.

Did God use evolution in creation? He said that He did not! I don't believe He lied.
---jerry6593 on 3/12/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Vinni, I have endeavoured to be clear in defining evolution as microbe-to-man evolution to avoid confusion. Evolutionists believe life arose from dead chemicals by chance, then evolved 'upwards' with one kind becoming another.

This is not selection of genetic (as you wrote about) but the creation of totally new specific DNA. Selection doesn't add new information, actually deletes it. The opposite of 'kind to kind' evolution.

God says (Genesis) He created various 'kinds' of creatures to reproduce within their own kind, and that's what we see, amazing variety but still distinct kinds.
---Warwick on 3/12/09

Evolution versus Creationism....hmm how can you even hold them against eachother . they are like apples and oranges... life had to occur and things then had to change over time.. im very young and i can recognize that.
---Jessica on 3/11/09

Invegetator: "What possible motive could there be for 99 percent of all biologists to work within the framework of the theory of evolution if it weren't well-founded?"

How about MONEY? Only pro-evolution tasks are funded. How about RELIGIOUS BIAS? Most academicians are left wing atheists, agnostics or theistic evolutionists. If scientific inquiry were indeed their aim, then why are scientific arguments counter to the approved dogma not allowed?
---jerry6593 on 3/11/09

Evolution IS proven.
A micro organisme that mutates in a different version adapted to a new environment, isnt that evolution ?
A colony of wild foxes captured, domesticated and tamed that show incredible physiological changes in only 4 or 5 generations, isnt that evolution ?
Proof of evolution is everywhere. Life is engineered by God to evolve.
No evolution is anti-life.
I really dont see why keep God out of the evolution process.
Creating a univers full of life that evolves is far more miraculous than a static form of life that doesnt change.
What is the point of life if not to evolve ?
We evolve intellectually, spiritually, physicaly. Thats the purpose of life itself in my view.
Thats how I see things.
---Vinni on 3/10/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Yes. However, in absense of direct evidence of either, it is more plausible to believe Paul was born of two parents (in the usual way) rather than created ex nihilo. Why? Because we can witness contemporary occurrences of the former, but not the latter.

Similarly, while we cannot see how things happened at the beginning (Did God create them whole cloth? or did he use evolution? or did evolution just happen?), we CAN observe fragments of evolutionary occurrences today (and more so as our science improves), but it is necessarily impossible for us to observe divine creation of the universe today, unless God decides to wipe this universe clean and start afresh (and in such a case, few will be around to witness it).
---StrongAxe on 3/10/09

StrongAxe, then we are agreed that both evolution (as in the appearance of life, and microbe-to-man evolution)and Biblical Creation are not testable by the scientific method. Therefore we can only deduce what has happened in the past by the evidence, which exists in the present. Both Christians and evolutionists having the same evidence.

From what I can see the available evidence better suits Biblical creation than naturalistic evolution.

The existence of Paul is verified by both the written word, and by eye-witness testimony. No such evidence exists for evolution.
---Warwick on 3/9/09

Vinni I agree, some people and some organizations are scary. I have met strange religious people, especially those from cults.

However you have nothing to fear from me as I am only letters on a screen. I correspond offline with Jerry6953, and AlanofUK and I don't think they would see me as scary!

As regards 'deaths and crimes' I believe atheism has been the cause of more death and suffering than any of the 'religious' persuasion. We also need to remember that for a Christian to behave so only demonstrates they are not Christian , but opponents of Christ

You wrote '..some principles of evolution ARE proven. What principles do you refer to?
---Warwick on 3/9/09


It is impossible, using the scientific method, to determine if ANYTHING that happened in the past happened a certain way. However, one CAN develop hypotheses about how things work in general, and determine if certain hypotheses about how things might have worked in the past are plausible or very likely. (For example: we can observe how human beings reproduce today. Thus, we can postulate that the apostle Paul very likely had a mother and a father, even though we cannot directly and scientifically verify this fact.)
---StrongAxe on 3/9/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

Invigilator (??) you wrote 'What possible motive could there be for 99 percent of all biologists to work within the framework of the theory of evolution if it weren't well-founded?'

I am unsure what you are meaning to say but are you suggesting that the origin of life, and microbe-to-man evolution have been proved by the testable, repeatable, observable scientific method?

If no then what are you saying?
If yes please demonstrate how this was done.
---Warwick on 3/9/09

God has to put his faith in your heart to believe his word. Think about this.God said that that he would supply all our needs, IF we are obedient to his word.Everything that is on this earth, {except for a few moon rocks} came from this earth including this PC that your on. Now that's a perfect God who thought of everything. Nope. I don't think we came from monkeys.
---Glen on 3/7/09

It's true, I might have a dislocated view of the bible. It's just the I am scared of religious people and religious organisations. Nothing in the history of mankind is responsible for more deaths and crimes than religions. So if you bring me a book and tell me its the word of God, I'm afraid you'll bash my head with it if I say I don't believe you.
For me, God is everything, everywhere. It's the fabric of life, of the univers. There is nothing that is not God. So God doesn't need anything from anyone. All we need to do is enjoy the miracle of life and the paradise he gave us.
The argument about evolution or creation is so irrelevant.(Although some principles of evolution ARE proven) Do you understand my opinion better ?
---Vinni on 3/6/09

You make a good point. Wether its man or God who wrote the bible isn't relevant. You believe in it or not. I believe in God. It's in men I don't always believe in.
So if I say I don't believe in the bible, I'm NOT saying God is a liar.
And I really don't need a book to teach me about God. I see God everywhere. I just need to open my eyes and my heart. If the bible causes more misunderstanding and arguments than it solves problems, why don't we just put it asside and think for ourselves ? Do you need a book to know how to behave ?
I don't see how the evolution theory keeps God out of the equation. The process of evolution is a miracle itself ! If that was Darwin's view, he omitted something very important. ,-)
---Vinni on 3/6/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

StrongAxe you wrote 'We both agree that "creation science" and "intelligent design" cannot be proven. This means that they cannot be called "science".'

On 27/2 I wrote 'Neither God's creation, nor the evolutionary belief can be proven by the scientific method.' Very different to what you say. Evolutionsts claim that live appeared from non-life, by naturalistic methods and from this original life-form all other kinds of creatures-fish kind, reptile kind etc, have evolved by naturalistic processes. This cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore evolution is a belief about the past, not science.

This all occured because the original blogger said creation was belief and evolution was science.
---Warwick on 3/6/09


More to the point, how can one distrust the Bible because it was transcribed by men, and yet embrace Darwin's and other men's writings which contain childish explanations of origins. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
---jerry6593 on 3/7/09

I am interested to know what those who do not accept evolution think biologists are doing? Do you think it's all a big conspiracy? What possible motive could there be for 99 percent of all biologists to work within the framework of the theory of evolution if it weren't well-founded? We are talking about virtual unanimity in the life sciences here. Are they deluded? Lying? Why? What is your evidence for that?
---Invigilator on 3/6/09


I agree, I can't understand how people who don't trust the Bible because it's "written by men" can put their faith in the God it describes.

Personally, I find that a lame effort to discredit God's authorship of the Bible.

I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any document on this planet that wasn't written by men (other than the 10 Commandments), yet I don't hear people saying they don't trust ANY book for that reason.

Oftentimes an author has someone else write his/her book, yet this has never been an issue for anyone, why is it a problem for men to have written down God's word?
---Laurie on 3/6/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

Dear Warwick, Before i came to Christ, i did believe >Christianity was ONE big LIE, until the time that GOD REVEALED HIS GREAT POWER TO ME and PROVED TO ME HE IS THE LIVING GOD. I do not know where the offence is.This is my lifestory and i servee GOD FULLTIME ever since his REVELATION OF LOVE POWER AND GRACE, through HIS SON JESUS. When i was called for repentance through a preacher, i said exactely NO GOD, THIS CHRISTIANITY IS NOTHING BUT A LIE, they talk about love but do nothing else then killing eachother. upon wich HE audibly responded BUT YOU KILLED MY SON. it was this His response that brought me on my knees. and i Glorify His name for this eternally.
---Andy on 3/6/09

Yet with this i (Andy) did not say i personally hung Jesus on the cross. still when God showed this, i instantly knew that i had two choises, accept Jesus or die. i chose Jesus, i chose life. However this evolution still needs to proove his reality. bible cannot be accused of ever having lied, we (christians can be accused of misenterpretation. Evolution is build on lies. if one would be willing to take out all lies of evolution, and then try to make his point, i would be willing to listen. as i did when i found out that the lie did not come from God, but from some false individuals who want to ghet whatsoever upon the back of MY good CHRIST.
---Andy on 3/6/09

Amen Laurie! I wonder if Vinni is aware that there is a small section of the Bible which God Himself wrote with His own finger in stone. Part of that God-authored narrative reads:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is

God wrote that He did it Himself in six days. So either He did or He's a liar. Which kind of God would a Christian prefer? A truthful one or a liar?
---jerry6593 on 3/6/09

Warwick ... Warwick ... are you registered for the Chat & Penpals part of this Site?

If you are you need to log on than then go to "View a Profile"

Then type in alan8566, and then my profile comes up, and you can send me a message.

Or you could give me your penpal ID on the blogs and I could write to you
---alan8566_of_UK on 3/5/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

Well explained Laurie. You get my vote!
---Warwick on 3/5/09

Oh how simple. Satan is a liar and his people. God is truth.
---catherine on 3/5/09


The fact is, it is NOT a fact that the bible was interpreted and modified to accommodate anyone's agenda. That is rumor, and it is false.

If someone were to tell you God Himself wrote the Bible, would you believe it? Probably not. So for God to allow men to write down His word, is that really so odd? The bible claims to be inspired by God. You can choose to believe it or not. But whatever is true is not affected by anyone's belief.

Evolution is about explaining how the universe came to exist WITHOUT God. If the Bible is not God's word, then we really don't know anything about Him, and we're just making nice because it feels like the right thing to do.

That's not how it works.
---Laurie on 3/5/09

Vinni, you wrote 'God never wrote the bible himself. Men did it.'
You have a strange, dislocated view of Scripture. You cannot know whether God or man wrote Scripture-you were not there.

However this Bible you write about, this word of God says e.g. 'All Scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting .....' 2 Tim 3:16

Your low view of Scripture makes it a vile, deceitful, fabrication, not worth a casual glance. I am pleased you are wrong.

Scripture is in reality the word of God which reveals truth to us and shows us the only way to forgiveness, and eternal life with our Lord and creator Jesus Christ.
---Warwick on 3/4/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

Vinni, if we are going to get back to basics isn't the most basic of basics the fact that God says He created in 6-days creating all there is, including each of the 'kinds' of creatures.

Evolution says one kind evolved from another. God says no they didn't!

Where does God say, or even hint, that He used such a slow, cruel and wasteful system as evolution to create? Why would He need to, isn't He all powerful?

To defend the truth of Gods word against compromise is what we are commanded to do. See 2 Corinthians 10:4,5.
---Warwick on 3/4/09



In any sampling, there will be some individuals above the average, and some below. There is no way to tell from this whether smart people are remnants of a lost golden age, or just statistically expected variations.

In chemistry, physics, etc. hypotheses can be tested by performing experiments that can either support such hypotheses, or falsify them. (For example, the hypothesis "light behaves like a wave" is supported by the interference patterns in the two-slit experiment).

We both agree that "creation science" and "intelligent design" cannot be proven. This means that they cannot be called "science".
---StrongAxe on 3/4/09

Andy, you wrote 'i believed that also about hristianity, that it continually lied to make a point. nevertheless when i ghot a revelation of GOD, i could nothing else then to acepot HIM'

What do you mean?

Respectfully I suggest you take a little more care with your writing.
---Warwick on 3/4/09

I believe Darwin found a "possible" process that God used to install life on earth. The theory isn't perfect but plausible.
C'mon people, isn't the fact that life exists on this planet a miracle big enought to believe in God ? Even if there is a process called evolution, that doesn't kick God out of the picture. It only goes against some words written by some men in a big book.
Suggestion : Let's abolish all religions, start fresh, and love each other like brothers and sisters, only do to others what we would like done to us. You get the picture. Back to basics.
And even if you don't agree with me, I love you guys.
---Vinni on 3/4/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

I'm new to this debate. The thing that strikes me : I don't see how an evolution "theory" can invalidate the existence of God. It can only contradict some biblical writings written by "someone", for a certain "purpose". It's a very well known fact that the bible was "interpreted" and modified by the Vatican many times over the ages to better manipulate the belief system of people to accomodate their agenda. Large portions have been removed and some have been re-written. Why? Did the word of God change over the years ? God never wrote the bible himself. Men did it. Some well intentionned, some not so well. All I'm saying is that the foundation of the beliefs of creationnists seem very shaky to me.
---Vinni on 3/4/09

Axey: Most branches of REAL science and mathematics are not founded on conjecture. They are thoroughly tested in testable areas and are logically extended to untestable areas. (e.g., Calculus uses limit theorems to approach infinity, though we can't actually go there.) Evolution, by contradistinction, is founded solely on speculative conjecture, with NO underpinning science or mathematics to support it - only an occasional fraud. In fact, thoroughly tested science and mathematics tell us that Evolution is impossible!

May I remind you that "I am stupid. Therefore I am correct" is also a logical fallacy.
---jerry6593 on 3/4/09

Did anyone ever take in aount the fact that evolutionism is a religion and not a sience? even before i was a born again christian i refused to accept evolutionism on aopunt of all the lies they use to make their point.
i believed that also about hristianity, that it continually lied to make a point. nevertheless when i ghot a revelation of GOD, i could nothing else then to acepot HIM as true. (maybe people will say i'm crazy) Yet i did hear God with a true voice, i never saw any unforged proof for creationism. Im still waiting.
---Andy on 3/4/09

Strong Axe,

Being smart proves nothing, you're so right! Yet the attitude that prevails among evolutionists is that they are smarter than those brain dead Christians who put their blind faith in a bunch of ancient documents written by ignorant Jewish prophets.

Warwick is making the point that there are some phenomenally brilliant men who believe in creationism.

Evolution, in my opinion, requires more faith than creationism.
---Laurie on 3/3/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

Jerry you are right. Over the time I have blogged here numerous of the evolutionary faith (we came from nowhere, created by nothing, for no purpose, now headed nowhere) have claimed it is proven scientific fact.

When challenged most were never heard from again. A few brave others attempted a defence but in reality had no idea, apparently having just accepted this idea uncritically.

I really don't blame them as the pro-evolution indoctrination begins in preSchool and will brook no opposition.
---Warwick on 3/3/09

StrongAxe absolutely nothing in my comments even hinted that I believe Dr Sarfati's intelligence means he or other such brilliant people are right.

The point was, as clearly explained, that the super intelligence we see in some people today is most likely a left-over of the super intelligence man (created perfect) was originally given. The rest of us, sadly, are the result of about 6,000 years of downwards genetic decay-the curse.

Therefore Adam and co. were far better equipped to understand complex explanations, should God have chosen to give complex details regarding His creative method.

Please advise if you now understand?
---Warwick on 3/3/09

StrongAxe you wrote 'Most conjectures of most branches of science (such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.) CAN be tested.'

Question precicely what can be tested, and how? One example please.

You wrote 'The only exceptions are ones that deal with origin hypotheses, which cannot be reproduced, in the same way that historical facts cannot be reproduced. And in this matter, "creation science" and "intelligent design" can fare no better.' I agree. On 27/2 I wrote 'Neither God's creation, nor the evolutionary belief can be proven by the scientific method."

The original blogger said evolution is proven scientific fact which it is not. My aim was to show him he believe this by faith.
---Warwick on 3/3/09


Most conjectures of most branches of science (such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.) CAN be tested. The only exceptions are ones that deal with origin hypotheses, which cannot be reproduced, in the same way that historical facts cannot be reproduced. And in this matter, "creation science" and "intelligent design" can fare no better.

As far as a creationist being able to play 10 games of chess blindfolded, this proves nothing, there are atheists who can do similar feats. "I am smart. Therefore I am correct" is a logical fallacy.
---StrongAxe on 3/3/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

Laurie: Well said! What really puzzles me is that all the pro-evolutionists here who claim that science "proves" evolution can't seem to come up with a single piece of incontrovertible scientific evidence that supports their theory. Furthermore, they don't seem to have answers to the scientific claims presented here in opposition to evolution. Such is the stuff of blind faith religions - so at its core, that's all evolution is.
---jerry6593 on 3/3/09

Axey: Are you going to answer my question or just keep ignoring it?
---jerry6593 on 3/3/09

StrongAxe-man was created perfect in body/ mind, far more intelligent than fallen man today. Also God is able to explain whatever He chooses, to whomsoever He chooses.

I believe we see glimpses of this original supreme intellect in some people today- e.g.the creationist scientist Dr Jonathan Sarfati can play chess with 10 people at a time, and win, while he is blindfolded!

We need to know, and believe the facts of Genesis, as they are the foundation of real things, such as marriage,clothing sin and the gospel. If they aren't historical reality then the NT gospel has no foundation in reality.

What conjectures of science (as regards the appearance of life, and microbe-to-man evolution) can be tested in the laboratory?
---Warwick on 3/2/09

Good points Alan.

Anti-Christians often accuse us of being intolerant when in fact countries with a Christian foundation are very tolerant, often too tolerant

Conversely countries founded upon atheism (and other religions) exhibit extreme intolerance.

Australia has traditionally been a place where freedom of speech was a blessing. However this is quickly disappearing as anti-Christian left-wing ideology is made law.

In the state of Vicroria two Christian pastors were taken to court for reading the Koran in a Christian conference!

I read the transcript of the conference and the court case and was shocked at how the presiding judge distorted the truth.

Yes we have been too tolerant.
---Warwick on 3/2/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Someone saying that "the unreproducibility of historical event makes evolution a fact" would, indeed, be lame. But that's not at all what I said.

What I was saying is that "the fact that something can't be reproduced in the laboratory does not necessarily mean that it isn't true", because there are many things that we accept as fact that cannot be repeated. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that irreproducible things ARE true either. But we must rely on something other than laboratory analysis for verification.
---StrongAxe on 3/2/09

The science community should not present as fact anything that can't be proven using the scientific method. The fact is, in choosing to believe something they can't prove, they are exercising faith.

Whatever is true is not affected by what anyone says or believes. I put my faith in how God says the universe came to be. I believe it to be fact, but I can only present evidence for my faith, I can't prove it.

What puzzles me is why those who are not creationists insist on presenting the findings of science as fact when they know good and well anything science says today could change tomorrow.
---Laurie on 3/2/09

WArwick ... "SailDog, we are free to believe what we prefer in our Christian based democracies"

I wonder for how long? In the UK, our Christian-based tolerance has led us (i.e the authorities) to being so tolerant of non-Christians that we are so fearful of "offending" them that we are losing our rights to talk at work about our faith.

A nurse was suspended from work because she offered to pray for a patient, and a child chastised at school for talking about Heaven & Hell.

Yet this official attitude is nonsense. A large majority of people of non-Christian faith say that Britain should still base its society on Christian values.

---alan8566_of_UK on 3/2/09

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.