Replies

Okay, we have two competing views:

1) All organisms alive today are descended from earlier organisms stretching back through time to an original organism. To support this we have a fossil record showing that certain critters existed at certain times and that these critters bear a resemblance to critters which came before and after them in the fossil record. Additionally, we have observed speciation both in nature and the laboratory, so we know new species arise from older species [see the Speciation links I posted earlier]. We can infer this process has been going on for quite some time and accounts for the changes in the fossil record and for the diversity of life we see around us.

2) Some dude pops in occassionally to zap new species into existence out of nothing. To support this we have to twist an interpretation of an ancient religious text (the Bible says all those critters were created pretty much at once, something not supported by their resting places in the fossil record). There is no physical evidence for this and most believers will tell you it has to be taken on faith.

Now, which one seems more rational?

Okay, we have two competing views: 1) All organisms alive today are descended from earlier organisms stretching back through time to an original organism. To support this we have a fossil record showing that certain critters existed at certain times and that these critters bear a resemblance to critters which came before and after them in the fossil record.
Additionally, we have observed speciation both in nature and the laboratory, so we know new species arise from older species [see the Speciation links I posted earlier]. We can infer this process has been going on for quite some time and accounts for the changes in the fossil record and for the diversity of life we see around us.
2) Some dude pops in occassionally to zap new species into existence out of nothing. To support this we have to twist an interpretation of an ancient religious text (the Bible says all those critters were created pretty much at once, something not supported by their resting places in the fossil record). There is no physical evidence for this and most believers will tell you it has to be taken on faith.
Now, which one seems more rational?

Let's change a few words and see what we get ...

Okay, we have two competing views:

1) All computers working today are descended from earlier computers stretching back through time to an original computer. To support this we have a fossil record showing that certain computers existed at certain times and that these computers bear a resemblance to computers which came before and after them in the fossil record.

Additionally, we have observed speciation both in nature and the laboratory (or, at least, some of us claim we have), so we know new species arise from older species (or, at least, some of us claim that they do). Some of us, then, infer that this process has been going on for quite some time and accounts for the changes in the fossil record and for the diversity of computers we see around us.

2) Somebody manages occassionally to design a new computer out of the available resources.

NOW, which one seems more rational?

No, what we have is the idea that complex universe could have evolved by random chance in ways that make no intellect sense whatsoever and a theory that provides absolutely no proof.

As opposed to the common sense that 86% of the nation instinctively knows is true -- there is God.

Evolution is your desperate attempt to deny that there is a Creator you will be accountable to. It doesn't matter that you have to throw out all intellect and accept ideas that purely insane.

We have to take this dude zapping thing on faith?

Okay. These are very important issues here. You said in your post that we have evidence in the fossil record. That is not supported by honest evolutionists.

Evolution says that everything started out as chaos, right? And then over millions of years these highly detailed organisms(such as whales)develped. Isn't the major theory of evolution that things went from chaos and became more organized? All I can say is that before you get that powerful fin on the whale, you're going to get a badly deformed leg that is fit for nothing.And that won't survive in survival of the fittest, will it? What good is a deformed leg?

Have you heard of things like the gene pool? There are only so many genes in a species.

Evolution of humans? Our DNA is very complex! Our DNA can only be made using these certain 20 proteins. Ok. What's the problem? Those proteins can only be made by DNA!

As far as all that debate about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,the point is not that energy being used up refutes evolution, it is that the total entropy of the universe increases! Evolution says the opposite. Evolutionists say that things get more orderly.

Lets get serious here. Many people believe that this is a debate that looks like this: faith v. reason, evolution v. creationism, or Evolutionism v. Christianity.

I'd like to show you another way to look at it:

made by chance v. designed
life from non-life v. life from life
natural selection v. reproduction after kinds
Designer v. no Designer

This in not just a silly debate by silly irrational Christians. This has serious implications for you(and everyone). For example, if you have evolved from monkeys and are in a transitional stage, and you will continue to evolve into who knows what, what does that make you?

It means you have no worth.

After all, what is the worth of a freak of nature, who just evolved form animals and will continue to evolve? I'm not saying you personally are a freak, I'm just trying to show where our conclutions lead us.