Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes Evolution Is A Correct Scientific Explination Of Creation.
Evolution Is Happening Right Now And Has Always Been Happening Since The Begining Of Time.
Does That Mean God Didnt Create The World?...No.
It Means That If God Even Exists He Just Started Evolution, Like All Science, Aged And Appearing To Have Been Happening For A Long Time.
I Myself Beleive That Annunaki Sped Up The Process But Thats Not The Point.

Frankly, you're betraying a gross misunderstanding of the process of natural selection here. Not that that's atypical for creationists, given that they rarely take the time to actually learn the fundamentals of the science that they claim to be critiquing.

You seem to assume that evolution requires some kind of agency: that is, a conscious effort on the part of an organism to evolve. This is more along the lines of Lamarckian evolution than Darwinian theory. According to modern evolutionary theory, natural selection is a process of trial and error, but one undertaken by unconscious and ruthless selective pressures and not by the organism itself. In the case of trees, every seed produced by a single tree will vary slightly from its brothers and sisters, although most will be very similar to the one from which their parent grew. If a tree mainly produces seeds that simply drop off and germinate within close proximity to their parent (where competition for resources such as soil nutrients and sunlight will, contrary to your assertion, almost certainly doom the saplings to short, unproductive lives), any seed with a structural variation that allows it to travel further afield, thereby increasing its chances of finding a suitable, competition-free environment, will gain a competitive advantage over its siblings. Through this process the genes for flying seeds are propagated and refined, until you have helicopter seeds and the like.

Of course, not every tree solves the problem of dispersing its progeny in the same manner. Fruit trees opted instead for a method where their seeds are eaten by animals, who then transport the seeds and excrete them at some further location. Same result, different system.


Again, you're assumption is flawed. The organisms don't know anything; they evolve via selective pressures working on a population over time. It isn't a matter of understanding the physics of flight, it's simply that a long string of adaptations (probably starting with the pretty basic idea of controlled falling) led to fully realized flight.


Try reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life as a primer. You might also try The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Both are, I'm sure, readily available at your public library, as are many other books on the subject of evolution. You'd be much better served by a comprehensive survey of the evidence for evolution than by any piecemeal account of the theory that I could hope to give you via the internet.

Easily, this sort of thing is the most obvious part of evolution.

Any seed that falls furthest away from the tree is most likely to be out of the shade of the tree. And is thus more likely to survive and thrive. Over time those who's seeds have the highest aerodynamic drag will breed more, and stronger than other ones. Add a few million generations, you can easily see how the seeds could develop.



Survival and reproduction.
Those who do not survive or reproduce, do not pass on their genes. It's a fairly simple concept.
Only those who pass on their genes affect the next generation.


Yes, some trees overcome the competition problems with methods to slow the descent of seeds. Some by using huge numbers of tiny seeds. Some by using fruits, to entice animals and birds to spread the seeds in their feces. Some undoubtedly use other methods I can;t recall at the moment. All based on the same principle, whatever works gives an advantage, and allows that group of trees to breed faster.


It does not REQUIRE any planning. That is the point. No intelligence.
All it requires that anything that does not breed, does not pass on genes.




To the best of my knowledge scientists are about 40% non-religious. At least in the US, that is.


All science is naturalistic.


Technically, not. There must simply be no reason to necessitate a divine cause. A debate for another time, perhaps wink


Darwin was never an atheist that I am aware of. Perhaps a deist, but I have read nothing on him ever being anything other than a christian. Do you have a source for these claims?
And his theory of natural selection was a result of observations of the natural world.


I don't see how. Taken to the furthest extreme, it disproves only a literal genesis.


Much like the rest of observed reality.


An alternate explanation? You mistake their goal. Their goal is to clarify the ONLY current scientific explanation for the origin of life, abiogenesis. Which is not a branch of evolutionary biology.


Because they are trained not to be biased, and their work is constantly being scrutinised for all sources of bias by all other scientists, as well as the lay-man. And because they all, religious and non-religious alike, have reached a scientific consensus on the matter. That is rare.


Given that only the natural is testable, it is only the natural that can be tested.
If there was a supernatural cause, then there should be no possible natural cause. No such thing has ever been found. Many claimed, but science has found explanations for all of them.

The simply fact is that there are no valid alternatives to the theory of evolution. There is no theory of intelligent design, or theory of creationism. There is no scientific theory for either of them. And no evidence. And they both invoke non-natural explanations, which are experimentally vacuous.

The only real scientific presupposition are those that affect all forms of empiricism. Those are well documented, and have been discussed by philosophers for years.


Aspects of them both can be. As can any evidence left from the time when they happened. Like forensic science, you can use the clues left behind to reach a conclusion. You can also attempt to recreate aspects of the item under question. Which is what scientists do in super colliders for example.


The theory of evolution does not speak of "origins".


No. The reject it because in science things must be very precisely defined, and tested and experimentally confirmed and other sciencey things. Creationism is not science.
It makes no predictions. It is non-falsifiable. It is not supported by evidence, and is indeed contradicted by plenty.


Where do you get this "origins" thing from?


Ohhh, you mean the origin of species. Yeah. It is indeed.


Well it was given thousands of years of consideration. So you're lying there.
It it simply contradicted by the evidence. All of it. Evolution on the toher hand is supported by all of it.
The conclusion is obvious.


Again you really confuse the issue here. Jumping between abiogenesis, evolution, cosmology, and such things, all using the one term.
It seems to be that you do this in order to connect the scientifically determined natural history of the universe with some sort of "atheistic creation myth".
The two are not the same.


Enjoy your dark ages.

Key in what way? How is this relevant, unless you're casting aspersions on the the judgment of non-theists (an ad hominem attack) or trying to discredit evolutionary theory by associating it with beliefs that many Christians find distasteful (poisoning the well or an association fallacy).

I would also point out that there are eminent scientists who believe in both God and evolution, such as Francis Collins.


At the risk of sounding patronizing: well, duh. Any science is, by definition, philosophically naturalistic. The entire purpose of science is to understand the world without recourse to supernatural explanations.


You really are going to attack evolutionary theory because of its 'atheistic' qualities, aren't you? Do you lack the data or, more likely, the knowledge to attack evolution head on? At least Michael Behe and William Dembski pretend to have a scientific argument on their side.


Also, he wasn't able to reconcile what he saw as the inherent cruelty of natural selection with the idea of a benevolent God. Darwin died an agnostic.


Really? An explanation of how life on earth adapts to its environment disproves the existence of the great transcendent being that you Christians fancy God to be? Really? And here I thought we were discussing the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Alpha and Omega, the creator of the universe entire and author of every last Law of Nature; and you're telling me that a theory as terrestrial as evolution has sufficed to disprove his existence? Your God was much less impressive than I thought, apparently, to be slain by natural selection.

Now, it is true that, as Richard Dawkins said, the theory of evolution allowed atheists to be 'intellectually fulfilled', but that's not saying much, really. All that tells us is that evolution has cleared up an area of human thought previously cluttered with myth and legend, and that it gave atheists a bit of open ground upon which to build the scientific foundations of our philosophy. Does that pose any threat to your understanding of God? Only if he is a God of the Gaps, one who is diminished each time science wrests a bit more of the universe from the grips of superstition—a more Spinozan conception of God suffers nothing from an increased understanding of the world. No, evolution merely poses a threat to the magical-man-in-the-sky God, the one who demands that you believe that the universe is 4,000 years old, that tribalistic totem that a bunch of desert-dwellers dreamt up and who has about as much philosophical complexity as any other primitive idol.


Because they have not fallen for the false dilemma of God or Evolution. Many Christians have decided that, regardless of the beliefs of its researchers (which are irrelevant to the validity of the theory), that evolution does not invalidate God. In other words, they are capable of holding in their heads a complicated, subtle conception of the world and its relationship with God, one that rejects slavishly literal interpretations of creation myths.


Right, because Intelligent Design is unfiltered rubbish, and your argument one giant logical fallacy.


I wrote, on the first page of this thread, that you should avoid conflating evolution with any attempts at describing the beginnings of the universe or of life on earth. Evolution discusses how life changes. Full stop. It says nothing about the origins of life (abiogenesis) or of the universe (the Big Bang, string theory, multiple universes, whatever).


I could say the same thing about creationism. You have engaged in arguments ad hominem and ad consequentiam, you have poisoned the well, you have assigned guilt by association, and revealed a startlingly narrow understanding of the role of God in the universe.

Please explain to me how the fact that atheists accept the theory of evolution means that Christians cannot, anymore than Christians cannot accept that the earth revolves around the sun simply because atheists believe that too.

I don't think I skipped anything important, if I did, pint it out please.


Of course.


When did he do this?
Was it simply in a fit of anger? Or a reasoned position? Did he hold to this position through out the rest of his life?
Besides which, simply no longer being Christian does not default you to being an atheist.


So say the biblical literalists. Those who interpret it metaphorically say otherwise.


That was somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek response wink
But it is worth noting that nothing in observed reality requires a deity.


Pot, meet kettle.
You claim you are open minded enough to see both sides and judge objectively, however in the same breath you judge the validity of the theory of evolution as "foolish" because in the minds of bronze-age Israelites not believing in their god was foolish... Thus their creation myth must be true. Anything that disagrees with it is foolish, and can easily be dismissed.

Yeah. That'll work.
It is telling that there are many christians, including the catholic church, who have no need for a literal reading of genesis.


The creationist perspective is biased. Of course they will not look at it from that angle. it begins with a conclusion that is absolute, and cannot change. And it cherry picks any data that might fit it.


And one fits with all of the evidence, and is supported by it. It has made successful predictions. It has been directly observed in laboratories, and records exist in the historical record of it happening in the past. That one is the conclusion of scientists, religious and non-religious. That one is not creationism.


Your glasses are the epitome of bias wink
You have a conclusion you will not accept to be changed.


I have yet to see a creationist claim that stood up to scientific rigour.
Most were plain lies. The rest a mix of misrepresentations and plain idiocy.
The infamous Kent Hovind leading the latter pack.

I mean, if I have to read someone claiming that the 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidations evolution once more... >.<


No, but that is a massively false analogy.
It would be more accurate to say that you CAN claim there was a birth, because of the traces left behind on both mother and child, and on the world around them. Including the testimony of the mother.

Really bad analogy all around.


That's not what the word "origins" suggests to me. In that context, that I ORIGINATED from my mother is a matter of "origins"

To me the word suggest the origin of life as a whole, and of the universe.
neither of which is covered by the theory of evolution.


They are associated in so much as both are scientific theories. No more than that.
The only other association that I know of is that both are attacked by religious people who object to them not agreeing with their religious interpretations.

And nothing in either theory is "RANDOM". Nor are there "unlikely numbers". I have heard both from creationists, and both are simply wrong.


You can? And you base that on what? It would seem that you really have no authority to say that at all.


Incorrect.
It can be experimentally confirmed. It cannot be recreated, we don't have a spare universe to play with, but we can experiment with high energy physics to refine our models. The evidence of the bigbang is solid, and well documented.


Where you place the term "Evolution and Big Bang Theory", everyone else just uses the word science. It's far simpler, and more accurate. And no, the evidence cannot be in favour of creationism, because it is non-falsifiable.
No matter how reality is, creationism can say "god made it like that". It is not science.


You seem to be using "origins" in a number of different contexts. Try another word please, I have no idea what you're saying here.


You are just confirming my statement. Your view is one sided.
There is only one scientific side.

Thousands of non-scientific ones, but only one scientific one.


"Their filter", as if they are a single entity, rather than a large group of individuals.


It is simply a lie to state that creationism has not been given a fair chance. It has been assumed to be true throughout MOST of European history. And it has ultimately failed.


Contradictions with observed reality.
For a start, the universe looks to be about 14 billion years old. And the earth 4-5 billion. Animals evolve, that much can be seen. And there is an extensive fossil record showing that they did historically. And that they did this over hundreds of millions of years. Fossils representing transitions from reptiles to birds. From reptiles to mammals. From fish to amphibians. From protohumans to humans. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun is enough to show that the bible cannot be read literally. Or that the earth is a globe.


Without considering it? Hardly. It's been given it's chance and failed. Nothing I've seen since has given me reason to reconsider.
There is nothing to differentiate your creation myth from that of any other religion in the mind of a non-christian.

Of the top of my head, no idea.

Ask the flat earth society.


But there is no scientific debate. Just the "dabate" between those who cannot accept it because their religion says otherwise, and those who can.


Skim-read it. Nothing new, and you pasted it below so I'll deal with it there.


Or not. wink

Time for the article itself.

Yay for the length of it >_>


This is a lie. It can be observed directly in labratories. And historical records show it in action.
We know it works to the extent that we can direct it to evolve wolves into great danes and chihuahuas.
It is the reason why we need to keep updating our medicines after penicillin to keep up with the biological warfare at work 24/7 inside our bodies.


Ok, first big error. And an elementary one at that. EVERY SINGLE SPECIES is a transitional one. From it's ancestors to it's progeny. This generation will be different from the next one, and is different from the last. That is basic evolution.
What these people are implying is that evolution suggests that we should see half dog, half cat, creatures. This is simply a lie. A strawman, technically. A logical fallacy. There is such a thing as a phylogenetic tree. Notice how the branches do not merge, they diversify.
So to begin their article, they set up a false version of evolution that they intend to then "disprove". The epitome of the strawman fallacy.


Ah, they used my dog - cat example too.

So, in THEIR version of evolution, which they seem to want to call vertical evolution for some reason, one "kind" of animal morphs into another "kind" of animal. Were this to actually happen it would be proof against the theory of evolution, not in favour of it.

Then we have some weird directional description of evolution that they are making up here. I've never read those terms in any textbook. So not only are they making up their own strawman version of evolution, they are making up their own jargon to go with it.


Actually the experiment usually proceed like this. Have one group of fruit flies. Split it into two groups, and place them in different environments. Now allow them to breed for a period of time. Then examine them. You should find, if evolution occurs, that they will be different, to one degree or another. If they are different enough that they can no longer interbreed, then they are of a different species of fruit fly. Thus speciation is observed.
It is a slightly trickier thing to pin down, though. The definition of species in the wild is simply... animals that are similar. When dealing with speciation we must then ask, at what point does similar become dissimilar? In various biological disciplines different technical definitions of species are used. The usual one is simply that it will not breed together without human intervention, or will not produce viable offspring if they do breed. But this isn't a great definition.
Presumably, then, given that that quote is from an anthropologist, not an evolutionary biologist, he is using a different definition. Perhaps he is looking for morphological differences. I don't know. And it should be noted that he does not say that new a new species of fruit fly has not been seen. It doesn't matter though, the point of the experiment stands. When isolated, different populations can evolve differently.


Very little, then, is "true" science. We cannot have a river carve a valley in a laboratory. Or watch an iceage come and go.
They are science though. By "historical science" they mean that you study the world as it is, and see what traces the past has left on it.

Where they get the idea of a "dean of living evolutionists" I don't know, presumably it's simply slander to try to paint the scientific community in religious colours. An interesting, if underhand, tactic.


Well, since every single fossil is a transitional fossil, unless it was of the last of it's lineage, this displays another huge misunderstanding of how evolution works. Well, the real theory of evolution. It fits just fine with their made-up strawman version. And it is not true that evolution is slow, as such, but that major changes in large animals take a long time. Such creatures have long life times and few offspring.

On to the quote itself. That certainly does not suggest that the fossil record is not rife with transitional forms. Or indeed that it is in any way lacking. What was the point of it I wonder?


Creationists love the word "kind". They simply refuse to define the word, and thus can easily move the goal posts as often as they like. It used to mean species, but speciation is far too common for that. so they had to change it. Ah well. Now it seems to mean genus. Which is a suitable long term change that it won't happen in one person's life time. Handy that.
And what is this about "more complex kind"? It displays another common creationist strawman, the idea that evolution is a kind of ladder that needs to be climbed, from less complex to more complex.

But anyway, the evolution of horses and whales is well documented, it is not as they claim "doubtful". Well, it is to them, they doubt they can really claim it's a fake, and must then dismiss it as "controversial" instead.


I will not repeat myself, see above.


Obviously they're devoid in the modern day, they evolved into other things. The fossils are there though. As is the anatomical traces of earlier times, and the genetic traces.


This looks like quote mining to me... Let's see.
Can't access the original article *Sigh*

Best I can do is point out the language of the quote. Notice the key words "at first glance"? Obviously there is more to come to show why the first glance is wrong, a common literary device. If anyone has access to the article can they show me please.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=079FCFD9-CE1A-4A6B-B7BF-A0D468AFD9C


And this clinches it. Seems he is indeed showing why it is indeed not a problem. wink

http://www.crbmb.com/cgi/content/full/39/2/99#SEC11

A later paper by him for those interested in how his work has progressed.


Alternative translation: We don't know all of the details yet, but we're getting there.


The goal was to synthesise amino acids via non-organic means. It succeeded. Sounds like damn good evidence to me.

Further experiments have show other organic molecules can arise through non-organic processes.


Yes, 100 million years, a eye blink. rolleyes
No way that extremely short lived creatures could evolve during that time.
lol


Hardly a mystery is many theories are around.
Seems like something that could have happened in a number of ways.


That quote does not say what it is claimed to say.
It simply says that forms are mostly stable for periods of time, before changing.

This quote mining is getting out of hand here. This is the worst one so far.


That don't change during the duration they are stable, you mean. They change after that, presumably in response to environmental changes.
As for the reat, yeah, filling in the blank parts of incomplete fossils with likely parts in order to fit it into the trees as best it can be. Not, as you are trying to suggest, making it all up as you go along.


It is a pity the fossil record is so incomplete, but we deal with what we have.


The quote does not support the idea that fossil evidence is contradicted by the genetic evidence.
And the idea itself is simply false. They match up quite nicely as far as I am aware.


Notice the word direct. We cannot simply look into the past, we must make the best of the evidence available.


And yet, this is a lie. There is plenty of evidence for both.
We KNOW for a fact that wolves can be bred into creatures as diverse as Irish wolf hounds and poodles.


Science is, in it's entirety, a search for natural explanations of phenomenon. ALL of science is built on this.


The only prediction of special creation is that the world would be as it is if it was created that way. Which is not a scientific prediction, and which is not based on a scientific model of creation. Certainly I have never read a paper with a creation model of origins. Someone link me to it please.


"Downward", again with the made up jargon that they can adapt to mean anything they wish as they use it. nice.

they of course ignore all of the fossils taht show the evolution of whales, birds, hominids, canines, dinosaurs, modern reptiles, modern fish and so on.
In fact, they must ignore these. The need to in order to keep up their pretence that they are any other than another group of religious people refusing to deal with observed reality when it contradicts their heartfelt religious doctrines.

In summary, a hoard of lies, quote mining, misrepresentations of people's words, misrepresentations of the facts, strawman versions of various scientific concepts, and outright jargony waffle.
I expected no more, to be honest. Experience is a depressing mistress.

I really don't like posting this late in a debate, but here goes. I probably won't respond. Oh and I've got 2 other journal entries pertaining to why evolution is crap.

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere
In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

(4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8 )What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?
For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18 ) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.
Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".
Robert H. Congelliere
Comments? Students: Let me know what your teacher or professor said after they looked over these questions. Did they give you any answers?