Slashdot Mirror

Congratulations. You hold exactly the same viewpoint as the more dull-witted variety of creationist Bible-thumper.

DNA is DNA.

And you know, oddly, that "profit driven" model of agriculture has produced mammoth food surpluses, while socialist agricultural models designed for the "common good of mankind" produced nothing but famine after famine after famine.

This can't be true! The earth isn't even over 9,000 years old!!! Hello!?!?!? http://www.answersingenesis.org/

QUICK: DNA for organisms residing in a gene pool where part of the population is eliminated. Ceratin traits that exist in some do not exist in others and thus a loss. Same thing happens in natural selection, loss of genetic information or a larger gene pool. Same thing occurs with extinction, of which we are reminded that 90% of all life forms in existence at one time or another are extinct.

That fact alone disagrees with the entire imaginary engine that is supposed to push evolution. Being that loss and entropy are proven through observation and beneficial mutation is so rare it is a wonder that anyone got the idea it could even go up.

You do not have to assume linear shrinkage, it could could be geometric or exponential, but it is doing so at a pretty good clip at this time. To think that somehow it was roughly the same size or close enough BILLIONS of years ago defies all of physical science.

No, I will leave linear assumptions to people who try to use carbon 14 to date ancient artifacts or organic specimens they assume had a nearly identical atmosphere in the prehistoric past. Take one reading and get 5,000 years. Take another of the same specimen and get 68,000,000!

The source I last saw on the sun was the Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder.

There are many sources, but surely you understand the sun (like any other star) does stay the same size, don't you?

Creating life in a test-tube?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/te sttube.asp

No intelligence to create life?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/2 0/origin-of-hype

Creating life in a test-tube?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/te sttube.asp

No intelligence to create life?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/2 0/origin-of-hype

So.....don't "push the envelope." What is the big deal? I don't care if you push the envelope with graphics, resolution, etc, but why must you insist on "pushing the envelope" morally? Do you even have a sense of what morality is? Or is it a case of "I have my own morals, which are good for me, everybody else can live with it or shut up!"? How do a you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"? The majority decides? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

        The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.
                See Bible Questions and Answers
                          http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bibl e.asp

        God made the first man and woman--the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

        And don't forget--according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

'That's nice for you, but it's not for me'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/ed itorial.asp

Manuscript Support for the
Bible's Reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html

Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mora lity.asp

Bible and Christian Theology
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

Family & Marriage Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fami ly.asp

So.....don't "push the envelope." What is the big deal? I don't care if you push the envelope with graphics, resolution, etc, but why must you insist on "pushing the envelope" morally? Do you even have a sense of what morality is? Or is it a case of "I have my own morals, which are good for me, everybody else can live with it or shut up!"? How do a you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"? The majority decides? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

        The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.
                See Bible Questions and Answers
                          http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bibl e.asp

        God made the first man and woman--the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

        And don't forget--according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

'That's nice for you, but it's not for me'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/ed itorial.asp

Manuscript Support for the
Bible's Reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html

Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mora lity.asp

Bible and Christian Theology
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

Family & Marriage Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fami ly.asp

So.....don't "push the envelope." What is the big deal? I don't care if you push the envelope with graphics, resolution, etc, but why must you insist on "pushing the envelope" morally? Do you even have a sense of what morality is? Or is it a case of "I have my own morals, which are good for me, everybody else can live with it or shut up!"? How do a you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"? The majority decides? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

        The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.
                See Bible Questions and Answers
                          http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bibl e.asp

        God made the first man and woman--the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

        And don't forget--according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

'That's nice for you, but it's not for me'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/ed itorial.asp

Manuscript Support for the
Bible's Reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html

Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mora lity.asp

Bible and Christian Theology
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

Family & Marriage Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fami ly.asp

So.....don't "push the envelope." What is the big deal? I don't care if you push the envelope with graphics, resolution, etc, but why must you insist on "pushing the envelope" morally? Do you even have a sense of what morality is? Or is it a case of "I have my own morals, which are good for me, everybody else can live with it or shut up!"? How do a you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"? The majority decides? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

        The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.
                See Bible Questions and Answers
                          http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bibl e.asp

        God made the first man and woman--the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

        And don't forget--according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

'That's nice for you, but it's not for me'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/ed itorial.asp

Manuscript Support for the
Bible's Reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html

Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mora lity.asp

Bible and Christian Theology
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

Family & Marriage Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fami ly.asp

Hello,

I am glad that you have such great questions and objections to the Bible right now. I will try to answer them as clearly as I can. I will be referencing an organization called Answers in Genesis quite a bit. They are a Christian apologetics group dedicated to defending The Bible. They start off by taking the creation account literally, because, without it, there is really no foundation to the rest of the religion. If you have any more questions, Answers in Genesis, most likely has an article dealing with the topic at hand. Please read and learn.

>(Rockwood's wife) I was born and raised protestant, taught Sunday School, sang in the church choir...etc. I have read the bible and since becoming an open-minded adult, have questioned the existence of God in the Christian sense.

Good for you, being involved in the church. I am going to assume that you know your Bible somewhat, hopefully I can make things a little bit more clear for you. One of the more relaxing verses, in my opinion is Psalm 46:10 "Be still, and know that I am God." I think that questioning God in a Christian sense means to study the word of God. Ask yourself if it makes sense. If not, then why doesn't it. Maybe you do not have all of the information to understand it yet. When that happens to me, I first look in my self-study Bible to look for related verses, because, as Christians well know, The Bible is tied together by all sorts of means: Foreshadowing, prophecies, mentioning other parts of the bible, etc. If that doesn't answer my question, then I go to a well trained Pastor. If my question is in the realm of apologetics, then I head straight to Answers in Genesis; most likely they have the answer that I am looking for, with biblical and scholarly support. Remember, Any serious study of scripture must recognize both law and gospel and must distinguish between them. To omit either one or confuse the two invites a misunderstanding of Christian Doctrine.

>There are way too many questions and no answers to prove that a man with such Omnipotent power ever existed.

I am not sure if you are objecting that God is not omnipotent, or if you are meaning Jesus, because he was a man. Remember, the Biblical God is triune: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Each of the three persons are 100% God, yet the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc. As a human, this boggles the mind. Where "paradoxes" occur, a childlike faith must prevail over logical deductions. Yes, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, although he humbled himself (Php 2:8), which means that the did not always or fully use his divine powers. I am not sure what the "too many questions" are, but the proof is in the Bible that you should be reading. Did you know that the gospels were eye-witness accounts of the events of Jesus? The gospels were written just decades after the period of Jesus. After seeing, what the disciples saw, I doubt that they forgot much of anything. In fact, the entire bible is an eye-witness account of history. That is why it can be trusted.

You can read more Bible Questions and Answers
at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bibl e.asp

The article called "The Christian and Authority" is very good.

"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'[g]?"
Matthew 21:16

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"[j]
"Who has ever given to God,

>A most interesting species of idolator, is the biblical literalist. You don't worship God, you worship a book.

Hmm. Most interesting, since Idolatry was defined in the Bible. Yes, I do take The Bible at its intended meaning, which includes the literal interpretation of Genesis. No, I do not worship a book, the book, written by God, is a handbook which leads me to the one and only Triune God. It tells me exactly how to live, but it also tells me that I cannot live as God intended me to live, because I was born into sin (rebellion from God). Instead of abandoning me, since he has the right to, he provided for me a way to be able to be with him after Judgment Day or after I die, whichever comes first. All I have to do is believe that Christ, 100% God and 100% man, is my savior. I have no intention to stop believing. Because God loved me so much that he suffered my punishment for me, I want to tell everybody I can that they also can enjoy this great blessing. Jesus is saving me from my sins, my mistakes, my pride. I fear that it will be too late for many people when they realize that they have been told a lie by this world. I will pray for you. God is the only god. There is no other.

You tell me, which is better:
1)Believing in evolution, where life is meaningless, you live, and you die, thats it, life sucks, get used to it before you die and nobody remembers or cares about you.
or
2)The belief that there is somebody that loves you just the way that you are, but loves us way to much to let us stay that way. Broken, flawed, vulnerable, people like you and me are invited to be the hands and feet of God and join him when he restores the universe to the paradise that it used to be.

Do you want to know more? Go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and read Genesis 1-11, Exodus 20 (the Law), John, Romans, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22. You will find him if you set your heart out to find him.

You should check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp for all other evolution based objections.

Interesting.. let's put that research in perspective -- "there are ~40-45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps," -- oh and to use some more real numbers
"total number of DNA differences at about 125 million."

"40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations--a problem referred to as "Haldane's dilemma." This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. "

Let's at least be honest about our arguments.. only two differences (as implied by the original post) used to "verify" a theory is a little dishonest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp .asp

Hello,

I think you need to read a few articles from the organization Answers in Genesis. Some of their articles directly address what you are talking about. Here are some of them, although you can search their site for virtually everything on the creation/evolution controversy. Here they are:

God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
"How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists--meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/go d_evolution.asp

Why Shouldn't Christians Accept Millions of Years?
There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah....
Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-c hristians-shouldnt-accept-millions

'Does it matter which is right?'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2005/1111.asp

Some questions for theistic evolutionists and 'progressive creationists'
"The following questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible -- indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they questio

Hello,

I think you need to read a few articles from the organization Answers in Genesis. Some of their articles directly address what you are talking about. Here are some of them, although you can search their site for virtually everything on the creation/evolution controversy. Here they are:

God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
"How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists--meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/go d_evolution.asp

Why Shouldn't Christians Accept Millions of Years?
There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah....
Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-c hristians-shouldnt-accept-millions

'Does it matter which is right?'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2005/1111.asp

Some questions for theistic evolutionists and 'progressive creationists'
"The following questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible -- indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they questio

Hello,

I think you need to read a few articles from the organization Answers in Genesis. Some of their articles directly address what you are talking about. Here are some of them, although you can search their site for virtually everything on the creation/evolution controversy. Here they are:

God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
"How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists--meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/go d_evolution.asp

Why Shouldn't Christians Accept Millions of Years?
There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah....
Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-c hristians-shouldnt-accept-millions

'Does it matter which is right?'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2005/1111.asp

Some questions for theistic evolutionists and 'progressive creationists'
"The following questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible -- indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they questio

Hello,

I think you need to read a few articles from the organization Answers in Genesis. Some of their articles directly address what you are talking about. Here are some of them, although you can search their site for virtually everything on the creation/evolution controversy. Here they are:

God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
"How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists--meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/go d_evolution.asp

Why Shouldn't Christians Accept Millions of Years?
There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah....
Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-c hristians-shouldnt-accept-millions

'Does it matter which is right?'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2005/1111.asp

Some questions for theistic evolutionists and 'progressive creationists'
"The following questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible -- indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they questio

Hello,

I think you need to read a few articles from the organization Answers in Genesis. Some of their articles directly address what you are talking about. Here are some of them, although you can search their site for virtually everything on the creation/evolution controversy. Here they are:

God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
"How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists--meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/go d_evolution.asp

Why Shouldn't Christians Accept Millions of Years?
There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah....
Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-c hristians-shouldnt-accept-millions

'Does it matter which is right?'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2005/1111.asp

Some questions for theistic evolutionists and 'progressive creationists'
"The following questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible -- indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they questio

It always amazes me how "scientists" can be so blatantly unscientific when they are bound and determined not to believe something. You speak of Science as this pure and incorruptible, binary, true-vs.-false kind of process, but you forget that Science has just as colorful a history as religion.
Back in the day the scientific view was that the Earth was the center of the universe, and was flat. The idea that it might, in fact, be round and orbit the Sun was considered preposterous and was given what you call a "public bitchslapping." It also used to be unimpeachable "fact" that spontaneous generation was the source of all life: meat begets maggots, etc. Even Aristotle is linked to this line of reasoning--the Wikipedia page on abiogenesis states, "According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth." It wasn't until Francesco Redi in 1668 that this started to be disproved.
Even today, when asked about the origins of life, many evolutionary scientists will advocate the Panspermia theory, claiming that there are seeds or germs of life floating around in the universe and that life on Earth arose from some of those germs. In my college biology class this was introduced as life arising from proteins on a meteor that crashed into Earth. This is a fine theory about how life came to Earth, and worthy of testing, but it still doesn't answer the question of the origin of Life. It just pushes the question back a little farther; instead of "How did life arise on Earth?" we have "How did life arise on that meteor?" The point is that if you take Evolution to be true as the origins of life on Earth, you eventually come down to the same question: "Where did that come from?" For instance, say humans arose from apes, apes from some primal mammal, that mammal from a bird or reptile (depending on your interpretation of the geologic record), that bird or reptile from something vaguely resembling a fish, and that fishy thing ultimately from some bacteria. Okay, where did the bacteria come from? Some say deep ocean vents, some say meteors, some say the unique weather patterns of the Earth at that time (which we can only assume) created just the right environment for spontaneous generation (QED).
Add to this the new evidence arising to contradict our "facts" concerning the geologic timeline (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino _tissue.asp) and the problem of the "missing link," and you are left with a few good solid theories in a sea of conjecture and assumption.
The fact of the matter is that our scientific "facts" are always changing, and the evolution theory is not without it's holes and contradictions. A true scientist remains open to any theory (until it is tested) to explain the unknown, because blinders are meant for horses, not people.

Hello,

Your comment "The people who actually care about facts, are already on the side of evolution." is not correct. Facts do not interpret themselves, they need to be interpreted. The evidence can be interpreted in many ways. You are assuming that the facts are on the side of evolution because you have the presupposition that there is no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so you interpret the evidence according to your worldview. In fact, there are many Ph.Ds that have a biblical worldview, and interpret the evidence according to that worldview.

"you have present evolution as an emotional alternative that can appeal to them."
I really like this quote. Ok, so you want to appeal to people by saying that they used to be monkeys and pond scum, and that life is meaningless? When you die, you rot, thats it. Without God, nothing matters. It doesn't matter if you are terminally ill or if you are a terrorist. You are going to die, and that is the end of it. Life, then, is utterly meaningless. Nothing you can do will make a difference. When you did, you won't even remember that you were here, and in a short time, no one else will remember you either. Life has not meaning; it never did; it doesn't now; and it never will. It's just time and death. That's all. Get tough. Get used to it. If that is true, why do you bother arguing about anything? What's the point?

I find is especially ironic that you insist that you "win them over." Hmm...That is what religions try to do.

"faith based opinions"
You, sir, need to read as much as you can from the organization Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis specifically answers evolutionists on scientific grounds. As it turns out, Creationists do not have the blind faith that you may think they have. In fact, if you read enough and try to understand, you may realize that it is evolutionists who really have the blind faith. But, sadly, many people in your position refuse to acknowledge, know, or try to understand what creationists are saying. It is actually kind of ignorant, but evolutionists like to point the finger elsewhere [read: creationists] and say that they are ignorant. Hmm.

Here is my favorite quote on AiG thusfar:
"So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it's because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it's the 'only game in town'--the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist's creation myth. It's a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich's worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

The following articles explain more, but don't stop at just these articles, there are hundreds of articles there. You can even contact them with objections and the like here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/)

Creation: 'where's the proof?'
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence--the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars--the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/cr eation.asp

You would al

Hello,

Your comment "The people who actually care about facts, are already on the side of evolution." is not correct. Facts do not interpret themselves, they need to be interpreted. The evidence can be interpreted in many ways. You are assuming that the facts are on the side of evolution because you have the presupposition that there is no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so you interpret the evidence according to your worldview. In fact, there are many Ph.Ds that have a biblical worldview, and interpret the evidence according to that worldview.

"you have present evolution as an emotional alternative that can appeal to them."
I really like this quote. Ok, so you want to appeal to people by saying that they used to be monkeys and pond scum, and that life is meaningless? When you die, you rot, thats it. Without God, nothing matters. It doesn't matter if you are terminally ill or if you are a terrorist. You are going to die, and that is the end of it. Life, then, is utterly meaningless. Nothing you can do will make a difference. When you did, you won't even remember that you were here, and in a short time, no one else will remember you either. Life has not meaning; it never did; it doesn't now; and it never will. It's just time and death. That's all. Get tough. Get used to it. If that is true, why do you bother arguing about anything? What's the point?

I find is especially ironic that you insist that you "win them over." Hmm...That is what religions try to do.

"faith based opinions"
You, sir, need to read as much as you can from the organization Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis specifically answers evolutionists on scientific grounds. As it turns out, Creationists do not have the blind faith that you may think they have. In fact, if you read enough and try to understand, you may realize that it is evolutionists who really have the blind faith. But, sadly, many people in your position refuse to acknowledge, know, or try to understand what creationists are saying. It is actually kind of ignorant, but evolutionists like to point the finger elsewhere [read: creationists] and say that they are ignorant. Hmm.

Here is my favorite quote on AiG thusfar:
"So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it's because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it's the 'only game in town'--the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist's creation myth. It's a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich's worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

The following articles explain more, but don't stop at just these articles, there are hundreds of articles there. You can even contact them with objections and the like here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/)

Creation: 'where's the proof?'
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence--the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars--the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/cr eation.asp

You would al

You, my friend, need to visit a site called Answers in Genesis. This site is dedicated to answering evolutionists on scientific grounds. Check it out.

Here are a few articles that you can start out with:

'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own 'science' and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so."

Also note that because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present. Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science.

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure

You, my friend, need to visit a site called Answers in Genesis. This site is dedicated to answering evolutionists on scientific grounds. Check it out.

Here are a few articles that you can start out with:

'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own 'science' and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so."

Also note that because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present. Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science.

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure

You, my friend, need to visit a site called Answers in Genesis. This site is dedicated to answering evolutionists on scientific grounds. Check it out.

Here are a few articles that you can start out with:

'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own 'science' and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so."

Also note that because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present. Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science.

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure

*yawn* And this post is a classic example of what's difficult in discussing Truth: use an inordinate volume of words to draw attention away from the issues at hand while simultaneously convincing the less scrupulous of us that the arguments hold true. This tactic is very useful for those who have good access to the media, as they can simply gloss over the details yet cite these "facts" as "overwhelming evidence" while they are really just lies made to polarize and separate people from the truth. This tactic is also found where one side of an "argument" has more money/resources/interest than they other, and so this rich "side" of the "argument" simply pays for or fabricates a bunch of arbitrary studies and buries the less fortunate side with more "evidence" than is possible for so few people to review and refute.

It's quite a genius strategy because it's hard to filter without seeming naive or single-minded. My general rule which seems to work well is that if someone cannot communicate a thesis in 400 words or less, they either don't know what they're talking about or they aren't very good at communicating the concept. Either way, the parent poster's argument fits as a long and complex argument built upon false assumptions and incorrect definitions. The foundation has been built for him/her via special interest groups with the aforementioned "resources" to spam the discussions and poison these so-called debates with armies of straw men for what should have originally been a non-issue. No wonder nobody bothers to refute these sources, they're illegitimate to begin with and do nothing but waste people's time, so why bother.

The parent uses two websites as primary sources which are Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research. It is worth noting that none of this evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and no information is available for auditing the cash flow for the websites, so naturally the content is largely produced by a few prolific authors of questionable moral and intellectual decency. The tone of the articles is polarizing and never avoids reinforcing the "us vs them" image via the usual straw man attack that supposes creationists are a legitimate group of individuals who have a legitimate alternative to what the "evolutionists" "believe".

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that "evolutionists" or whatever you want to call them, don't "believe" in evolution. They observe it in nature and it so far best explains the natural progression of life from its origins until the present, and from the present until the end of life. And until anyone observes a repeatable phenomena that evolution cannot explain (that it ought to) and some other theory does, then evolution is the prevailing theory in the field.

It's easy to give in to the polarity and believe that it's us versus them. These sites and other such sources of misinformation with such strong politically divisive rhetoric ought to be ignored. They promote dishonest discussion where people need not think for themselves but rely on others to think for them and they play to our emotions by inciting us to anger so we no longer need to be rational. Not only that, but they serve as a distraction from more important issues, such as the general political shortcomings of the day (e.g. our foreign policy. Iraq. etc) and even the issue that originally brought up this whole mess in the first place: EDUCATION. Who cares about education in the US when we can talk about abortion or how fundamentalist Christians are forcing Christianity down the throats of a nation with the freedom of religion? Who cares that the US was founded by agnostics, deists, and the like (but not Christians)? Minor details lost in a sea of deception. It really does feel like the Matrix when people are so capable of willing arbitrary concepts to be truth. The red pill for those who question everything and the blue pill for those who are less s

You need to read

Evolution or Creation:
What difference does it make?

at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.ht ml

Here is a bunch of articles on the same topic:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

Please read these articles. You might learn something.

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, 'Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.'
"When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists' real scientific objections."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter5.asp

Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!""
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
"The box-office hits X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United are squarely based on the theory of evolution. In these movies (and in the comic books that inspired them), mutations are the driving force of the continuing evolution of humans. The very first lines of X-Men are, "Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward." Are mutations really the "key to our evolution"? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" (Genesis 1:25)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-m utations-the-engine

Mutations Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

Natural Selection Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/sele ction.asp

Creation: Why It Matters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

Also, For your benefit, please read these articles:

Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova

If it is 100% fact that God doesn't exist, prove it.

Until you do, I will continue to believe in God, who loved me so much that he sacrificed himself so that he could rescue me. It provides much more hope than evolution, which says I live for a little bit, and then I die. [sarcasm]Wonderful.[/sarcasm]

Ok, think about this. Without God, nothing matters. It doesn't matter if you are terminally ill, or a terrorist. You are going to die, and that is the end of it. Life, then, is utterly meaningless. Nothing you do will make a difference. When you die, you wont even remember that you were here, and in a short time, no one else will remember you either. Life has no meaning, it never did, it doesn't now, and it never will. It is just time and death. Thats all. That's tough. Get used to it.

If evolution is absolute fact, then why do you bother arguing about anything? What is the point? The Christian, the atheist, the undecided, will all die, and that is it.

No, I was created special. Humanity said to God "We don't want you", but then God said "I want you", so he provided a way for anybody to join him again. He revealed himself via the Bible, so that all men could believe. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [men] are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

Do you know why the earth sucks? It is because we are under a curse. It wasn't like this in the beginning. God is currently giving us a taste of life without him, because we said to him "We don't want you." I am sick of living in the crap-tacular cursed world. I want to live in the restored world that God has promised is coming. Don't you? Do you want to know how to be able to live in that restored,perfect world? Just ask him! Get a Bible (www.biblegateway.com). Read Genesis 1-11, Exodus 20 (the Law), John, Romans, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22.

Here is an article that directly deals with this topic:
Does God exist?
"Is there objective evidence that God exists? What are the consequences of atheism? Where did God come from? Can we know God personally?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersB ook/existence1.asp

Here is an interesting article you can read:
'Testing God: Killing the Creator'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0419compa ss_prog1.asp

Thanks for reading, and perhaps considering this.

If it is 100% fact that God doesn't exist, prove it.

Until you do, I will continue to believe in God, who loved me so much that he sacrificed himself so that he could rescue me. It provides much more hope than evolution, which says I live for a little bit, and then I die. [sarcasm]Wonderful.[/sarcasm]

Ok, think about this. Without God, nothing matters. It doesn't matter if you are terminally ill, or a terrorist. You are going to die, and that is the end of it. Life, then, is utterly meaningless. Nothing you do will make a difference. When you die, you wont even remember that you were here, and in a short time, no one else will remember you either. Life has no meaning, it never did, it doesn't now, and it never will. It is just time and death. Thats all. That's tough. Get used to it.

If evolution is absolute fact, then why do you bother arguing about anything? What is the point? The Christian, the atheist, the undecided, will all die, and that is it.

No, I was created special. Humanity said to God "We don't want you", but then God said "I want you", so he provided a way for anybody to join him again. He revealed himself via the Bible, so that all men could believe. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [men] are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

Do you know why the earth sucks? It is because we are under a curse. It wasn't like this in the beginning. God is currently giving us a taste of life without him, because we said to him "We don't want you." I am sick of living in the crap-tacular cursed world. I want to live in the restored world that God has promised is coming. Don't you? Do you want to know how to be able to live in that restored,perfect world? Just ask him! Get a Bible (www.biblegateway.com). Read Genesis 1-11, Exodus 20 (the Law), John, Romans, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22.

Here is an article that directly deals with this topic:
Does God exist?
"Is there objective evidence that God exists? What are the consequences of atheism? Where did God come from? Can we know God personally?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersB ook/existence1.asp

Here is an interesting article you can read:
'Testing God: Killing the Creator'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0419compa ss_prog1.asp

Thanks for reading, and perhaps considering this.

Hello,

For your benefit, please read these articles:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don't teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences...

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own 'science' and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so."

Also note that because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation s

Hello,

For your benefit, please read these articles:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don't teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences...

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own 'science' and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so."

Also note that because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation s

Hello,

For your benefit, please read these articles:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don't teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences...

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own 'science' and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so."

Also note that because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation s

Hello,

Please watch these movies. The video titled "Origin of the Species" is very good. It addresses quite a few topics on evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

Also, this article is very good
Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!"..."
Read more at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Here is another good article:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

This is my favorite article:
Rushing in--where wiser heads might not
"One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda)..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimme r.asp

happy reading(if you do)

Hello,

Please watch these movies. The video titled "Origin of the Species" is very good. It addresses quite a few topics on evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

Also, this article is very good
Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!"..."
Read more at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Here is another good article:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

This is my favorite article:
Rushing in--where wiser heads might not
"One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda)..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimme r.asp

happy reading(if you do)

Hello,

Please watch these movies. The video titled "Origin of the Species" is very good. It addresses quite a few topics on evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

Also, this article is very good
Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!"..."
Read more at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Here is another good article:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

This is my favorite article:
Rushing in--where wiser heads might not
"One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda)..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimme r.asp

happy reading(if you do)

Hello,

Please watch these movies. The video titled "Origin of the Species" is very good. It addresses quite a few topics on evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

Also, this article is very good
Observation of evolution in bacteria
"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!"..."
Read more at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Here is another good article:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

This is my favorite article:
Rushing in--where wiser heads might not
"One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda)..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimme r.asp

happy reading(if you do)

Hello,

Your young-earth creationist comment really sparked my interest. I think you may be interested in these following articles. Or, perhaps, you will shove them off to the side because they contradict your worldview. Hopefully, you will chose the former.

For your benefit, please read these articles:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don't teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences...

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importa

Hello,

Your young-earth creationist comment really sparked my interest. I think you may be interested in these following articles. Or, perhaps, you will shove them off to the side because they contradict your worldview. Hopefully, you will chose the former.

For your benefit, please read these articles:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don't teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences...

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importa

Hello,

Your young-earth creationist comment really sparked my interest. I think you may be interested in these following articles. Or, perhaps, you will shove them off to the side because they contradict your worldview. Hopefully, you will chose the former.

For your benefit, please read these articles:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.a sp

Here is another fun article about claims that evolutionists make:
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Evolutionists say, 'Creationism is a belief system that has nothing to do with science.'
"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series 'Evolution' [see our online rebuttal of September 2002] sets the tone for this propaganda effort--ridiculing biblical religion as the enemy of true science, which had long shackled scientific study. Much of the first episode is a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It opens with Darwin's famous voyage on HMS Beagle. Darwin introduces himself and Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) in broken Spanish to villagers in South America..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter1.asp

Here is another article on the same topic:
'It's not science'
"Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a 'good scientific theory'. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of 'prediction' of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of 'science', it is therefore 'religion', and (by implication) it can simply be ignored..."
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_s cience.asp

Please note the distinction between operational science and origins science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation--repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

I really like this quote:
"Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I'm sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don't teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences...

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importa

Well, no, God did not say that that is impossible. You need to remember, that light years are a measurement of distance, not time. There is not a problem with thousands or millions of light years and the universe only being about 6000 years old.

Here are a couple of articles dealing with distant starlight and genesis. I can only post the first paragraph, please go to the articles and READ the ENTIRE article. It has been my experience that many people don't know or care to understand what Genesis/The Bible says. They immediately assume that it is wrong, and continue to knock down straw men, thinking that it somewhat helps their agenda.

Here they are:

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
"There are two useful conventions to define the time an event occurs: calculated time and observed time. Although calculated time has become the standard convention, it may not be the convention used in Scripture. This paper serves not to introduce any new astrophysical ideas, but rather to clear up a common misconception--a mismatch of conventions of measurement. Once this misunderstanding is eliminated, it becomes obvious that distant starlight does not prove that the universe is billions of years old, and neither is it a legitimate argument against the Genesis account of Creation."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

Feedback followed. There is more detail about the previous article in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2006/0602.asp

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp

Here is one on the horizon problem:
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
The 'distant starlight problem' is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel-time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel-time problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp

Speed of light slowing down after all?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_ davies.asp

Well, no, God did not say that that is impossible. You need to remember, that light years are a measurement of distance, not time. There is not a problem with thousands or millions of light years and the universe only being about 6000 years old.

Here are a couple of articles dealing with distant starlight and genesis. I can only post the first paragraph, please go to the articles and READ the ENTIRE article. It has been my experience that many people don't know or care to understand what Genesis/The Bible says. They immediately assume that it is wrong, and continue to knock down straw men, thinking that it somewhat helps their agenda.

Here they are:

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
"There are two useful conventions to define the time an event occurs: calculated time and observed time. Although calculated time has become the standard convention, it may not be the convention used in Scripture. This paper serves not to introduce any new astrophysical ideas, but rather to clear up a common misconception--a mismatch of conventions of measurement. Once this misunderstanding is eliminated, it becomes obvious that distant starlight does not prove that the universe is billions of years old, and neither is it a legitimate argument against the Genesis account of Creation."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

Feedback followed. There is more detail about the previous article in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2006/0602.asp

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp

Here is one on the horizon problem:
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
The 'distant starlight problem' is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel-time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel-time problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp

Speed of light slowing down after all?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_ davies.asp

Well, no, God did not say that that is impossible. You need to remember, that light years are a measurement of distance, not time. There is not a problem with thousands or millions of light years and the universe only being about 6000 years old.

Here are a couple of articles dealing with distant starlight and genesis. I can only post the first paragraph, please go to the articles and READ the ENTIRE article. It has been my experience that many people don't know or care to understand what Genesis/The Bible says. They immediately assume that it is wrong, and continue to knock down straw men, thinking that it somewhat helps their agenda.

Here they are:

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
"There are two useful conventions to define the time an event occurs: calculated time and observed time. Although calculated time has become the standard convention, it may not be the convention used in Scripture. This paper serves not to introduce any new astrophysical ideas, but rather to clear up a common misconception--a mismatch of conventions of measurement. Once this misunderstanding is eliminated, it becomes obvious that distant starlight does not prove that the universe is billions of years old, and neither is it a legitimate argument against the Genesis account of Creation."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

Feedback followed. There is more detail about the previous article in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2006/0602.asp

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp

Here is one on the horizon problem:
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
The 'distant starlight problem' is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel-time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel-time problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp

Speed of light slowing down after all?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_ davies.asp

Well, no, God did not say that that is impossible. You need to remember, that light years are a measurement of distance, not time. There is not a problem with thousands or millions of light years and the universe only being about 6000 years old.

Here are a couple of articles dealing with distant starlight and genesis. I can only post the first paragraph, please go to the articles and READ the ENTIRE article. It has been my experience that many people don't know or care to understand what Genesis/The Bible says. They immediately assume that it is wrong, and continue to knock down straw men, thinking that it somewhat helps their agenda.

Here they are:

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
"There are two useful conventions to define the time an event occurs: calculated time and observed time. Although calculated time has become the standard convention, it may not be the convention used in Scripture. This paper serves not to introduce any new astrophysical ideas, but rather to clear up a common misconception--a mismatch of conventions of measurement. Once this misunderstanding is eliminated, it becomes obvious that distant starlight does not prove that the universe is billions of years old, and neither is it a legitimate argument against the Genesis account of Creation."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

Feedback followed. There is more detail about the previous article in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2006/0602.asp

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp

Here is one on the horizon problem:
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
The 'distant starlight problem' is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel-time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel-time problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp

Speed of light slowing down after all?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_ davies.asp

Well, no, God did not say that that is impossible. You need to remember, that light years are a measurement of distance, not time. There is not a problem with thousands or millions of light years and the universe only being about 6000 years old.

Here are a couple of articles dealing with distant starlight and genesis. I can only post the first paragraph, please go to the articles and READ the ENTIRE article. It has been my experience that many people don't know or care to understand what Genesis/The Bible says. They immediately assume that it is wrong, and continue to knock down straw men, thinking that it somewhat helps their agenda.

Here they are:

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
"There are two useful conventions to define the time an event occurs: calculated time and observed time. Although calculated time has become the standard convention, it may not be the convention used in Scripture. This paper serves not to introduce any new astrophysical ideas, but rather to clear up a common misconception--a mismatch of conventions of measurement. Once this misunderstanding is eliminated, it becomes obvious that distant starlight does not prove that the universe is billions of years old, and neither is it a legitimate argument against the Genesis account of Creation."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

Feedback followed. There is more detail about the previous article in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /2006/0602.asp

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp

Here is one on the horizon problem:
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
The 'distant starlight problem' is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel-time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel-time problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp

Speed of light slowing down after all?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_ davies.asp

Please read this story, it is about six WW2 P-38 Lightning fighter planes that got buried in 250 feet of ice.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/sq uadron.asp

Here it is again:
Ice-bound plane flies again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/pl ane.asp

Here is a farily technical article on Global Warming:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/ human-caused-global-warming