(1) The humanly unimaginably awesome and complex order of the universe, from the subatomic to the galactic and beyond, requires a cause. And it makes much more sense that a being with the requisite ability to create such a universe, the Creator God, did so than the alternative alleged by evolution, which is that the universe created itself. It's preposterous to claim that something created itself. Yet this view is the foundation of all evolutionary theory.
So evolutionists, rather than creationists, properly bear the burden of proof for establishing the logical grounds for what is the more unlikely claim for the origin of universe and life.
(2) Beauty is real and cannot be accounted for by evolution. The most credible evolutionary theory can only offer an explanation of why men find women beautiful -- it relates to healthly childbearing and the survival of the race -- but it cannot explain why flowers are beautiful to people and not just to bugs that pollinate them. The beauty of form, color and scent of a rose, for example, cannot be explained by evolution, as human perception of such provides no survival benefit. Think also of majestic mountains and oceans and the glory of animals and plants generally. Beauty is real and may be seen from the highest to the lowest realms of the created order. As recognizing the beauty of these things confers no evolutionary advantage on us, evolution cannot explain them. But creationism, with its view that the beauty of nature reflects the beauty of the Creator, does offer a reasonable explanation of the origin of beauty.
(3) Human morality is also explainable only by the existence of a moral Creator God. I expect that most evolutionists on Free Republic believe that rape is wrong. But they can't, under evolution, explain why. In fact, rape is right under evolution, if it means that the superior genes of the stronger impregnate women and dominate in the next generation. By its nature, evolution has only one moral imperative: whatever works to better perpetuate the species is just. Anything to restrict that is sentimentalism and arbitrary imposition of one person's fancy of morality on others. By contrast, the creationist's understanding, that morality reflects God's character and is embedded in his creation, including in human consciences, better explains people's inherent concepts of morality.
The creationist view also explains how morality (e.g. murder is prohibited) may be codified as law and applied justly to all, including those who personally like to break the law, e.g. by murdering another. Evolution, by contrast, is hard pressed to explain why the murderer isn't providing a useful service, that is, reducing the number of the less fit, to the community and the species. That view, however repugnant to our God-given consciences, makes perfect sense under the internal logic of evolution.
(4) Love cannot be explained by evolution. I love my wife. And that love is not just chemical or visual-chemical attraction, which is all evolution may logically claim it to be. Love may include an element of chemical attraction, but it also transcends it. Mere chemical attraction is just lust. Which is why lust, unlike love, never leads to heroic self-sacrifice of the lover for the loved one -- a sacrifice I'd be willing to make to my own detriment and to that of the species. Such self-sacrifice, and thousands of years of love poetry, ballads, quests and the like can never be explained plausibly by evolution. As anyone who has truly loved, or truly been loved, should know at the core of his being.
We are more than just the random collision of atoms over time, which is the essence of evolution. It is telling testimony to the decline of mankind in the past two centuries that so many supposedly literate people can, with a straight face, claim that we are no more than those collisions. Shame on them all.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
(2) Beauty is real and cannot be accounted for by evolution.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
(3) Human morality is also explainable only by the existence of a moral Creator God.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
(4) Love cannot be explained by evolution.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
Kinda monotonous, isn't it?
Evolution makes no such claim. Evolution says organisms evolved from other organisms by mutation and natural selection. This has been repeated often enough that I now accuse you of telling a deliberate untruth; you can negotiate the consequences of that with your moral creator God.
Beauty is real and cannot be accounted for by evolution
I find evolution a particularly beautiful process, and the evolutionary relationships betwen organisms gives me a great deal of aesthetic satisfaction. I'd warrant many if not most life scientists feel the same. Yet if beauty is divine in origin, and if evolution is not true, then your moral creator God has a pitched you a curve, hasn't He?
I expect that most evolutionists on Free Republic believe that rape is wrong. But they can't, under evolution, explain why.
And conversely, the Bible cannot be used to determine the value of Pi.
As anyone who has truly loved, or truly been loved, should know at the core of his being.
"I feel it intensely, and therefore must be true". No Hollywood starlet could argue this any more convincingly
Yes. Unlikely with a probability < statistical zero.
God created = stupid. Nothing created itself = science.
Frog-> Prince = fairy tale. Frog + time-> Prince = science.
God made man from dust = stupid. Nothing made man from rain on rocks = science.
God is eternal = ignorance. Dirt is eternal = science.
As Paul Stookey wrote in a song, "A scientist can tell you how night turns into day, but he can never take the wonder away."