[Renfield]

This issue has been gnawing at me for years. I intuitively realized the inadequacy of the theory of Natural Selection in explaining the miracle of creation, but I could not communicate as eloquently as Mr. Stark. This is an elegant article.

[familyofman]

Show me the fossils!!!!

I'm really interested in those of god and the 'missing link'. If there is no fossil record of a missing link = none ever existed. No fossil record of god = he/it never existed.

[Tribune7]

A-G's been pinged but I can't type one without the other :-)

[aculeus]

I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinistbut as a liar.

[tang-soo]

This text is from the final chapter of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' Notice even Darwin referred to the Creator with a capital 'C'...

There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved.

Now for the interesting part. A link reported by Google can be found here under the heading 'knowledge matters' is found the following ...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Notice the difference? The phrase 'by the Creator' has been removed! Upon further investigation I have found that the version with 'Creator' as the source was added by Darwin during a subsequent edition. I think the choice of the version used to quote could indicate which side one happens to lie. I would think the honest person would choose the latest edition or at least footnote the other version.

The bottom line ... I have found that websites that promotes evolution quotes from the earlier edition. Why would an academic "effort" not use the latest edition which one would presume would be more up to date, have corrections update, more evidence ...? hmmm?

[tm22721]

When religion lacks proof it is called 'faith'.

When science lacks proof it is called 'theory'.

I suspect that religion and science won't merge (and God won't emerge) until we are able to step back one microsecond before the big bang.

BUMP

[azhenfud]

"The odds of creating even the simplest organism at random are even more remote--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, celebrated cosmologists, calculated the odds as one in ten to the 40,000th power. (Consider that all atoms in the known universe are estimated to number no more than ten to the 80th power.) In this sense, then, Darwinian theory does rest on truly miraculous assumptions."

The few science courses I took in college referred to these odds as "negligible".

[Aquinasfan]

Modern physics provides a model of how science benefits from being willing to live with open questions rather than embracing obviously flawed conjectures.

Bingo.

[Publius6961]

(If you haven't read this already, you should!!!)

Why?
First of all, anyone who uses three exclamation points has some serious mental health problems (to say nothing of grammatical savvy).
Second of all, not having a life is even sadder than not having a brain. Topics which deal with "faith", from any angle, by definition involve the unproveable, so only a neurotic would obsess on it.