 Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: WI
Posts: 621 
| I was searching for a definition for something and I accidentally came across this "wonderful" site: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan...onscience.html Quote: What should Christian teens believe about creation science?
If you attend a Bible-believing Christian school, or a strong, Bible-believing Christian church, you probably have no problem accepting creation science. You also probably know the weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
But if you have never heard the scientific reasons for accepting biblical creation over evolution, you may think evolution is fact and anything else is nonsense.
As Bible-believing Christians, we accept God's Word, the Bible, as authoritative and true. God's knowledge and wisdom are far above our own, so we accept Him as the expert on anything He wants to comment on. People who imply they know better than God are displaying careless arrogance. We cannot take them seriously.
In the beginning …
Something that God does comment on is how the world began.
The only one who was here in the beginning was God. No scientist. No skeptic. No representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Just God. So if we want to find out what happened in the beginning, whom should we ask? The one to ask is God. Not an evolutionary scientist or a skeptic, or a representative from the ACLU. Just God.
And God tells us in His book, the Bible, that He created the universe . in six days and in perfect condition. He tells us that He created:
- light on the first day
- the firmament (visible arch of the sky) on the second day
- trees and plants on the third day
- the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day
- birds and water creatures on the fifth day
- land animals and humans on the sixth day.Creation science upholds God’s Word
As Christians, we believe that anyone who is wise enough to use God as their authority, instead of using human theories, is going to get the important facts right.
When we look for people who do use God as their authority we find conservative Christians and creation scientists clearly falling into this category. Thousands of highly qualified scientists and scientific researchers believe the creationist view. So it is not true to say (as atheists and non-Christians sometimes do) that those who believe God's Word are uninformed, untrained people.
Creation science organizations exist worldwide, and their arguments for creation and the truth of the Bible, as opposed to the theory of evolution, are excellent.
We therefore believe that Christian teens should support the creation science view. It conforms so well with what God tells us in His Word (the Bible), that we believe it is the only view of science that Christian teens should support.
| And this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html Quote: Three problems for atheistic evolutionists
Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three huge problems to explain.
Problem No. 1
How did the universe come about?
There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.
Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin.
Problem No. 2
How could living creatures come from non-life?
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.
But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!
Dr. Kennethe Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,
“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”
For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis.
See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis.
Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were not present in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there . therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.
For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed.
See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis.
We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation . that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.
| 
__________________ GOP Vetting Emporium Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Synergy  Putin + Stalin = Palin | |