A Few Questions For Creationists

Way to evade having to answer any of the questions and not be bound to any 1 particular theory of creationism.*Rodibidably your intentions are great by trying to get answers but, I suspect that you'll get this type of response,(like mike the wiz's), which is to try and show the supposed problems with evolution from creo websites rather than get a straight answer on their position.Typical response: Instead of stating your position mike, as was asked by the OP, you choose to answer with "Well evolution has problems too", which is a total evation of what was asked.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi armylngst, and welcome to EvC forum, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. What it clearly shows is that to replicate a natural phenomena we(humans) need intelligence. Wind and high rain do just happen, to recreate them on command would require an intelligent being to access the phenomenon and determine what necessary tools, equipment etc. are needed. So if your intelligent 'being'(or God) simply sets in motion the laws of nature, then it seems like you have no proof of a God, you just have proof that natural laws exist. You personally invoke God as the responsible source of the laws but, you are not determining that based off of evidence, you are basing it off of faith in God. And again, your personal faith in Gods existance is not proof for God.Also note that it would be nice if you could define which laws of nature you are talking about. The 'laws of nature' on this planet mostly revolve around the size and mass of this planet that places it a this precise distance from it's host star. Are you saying that God placed this planet specifically at this distance from the Sun for the meer purpose of assigning 'laws of nature'? First, it is not a fact that God created any laws, it is a belief based on faith. However, your answer here needs more clarity. Was He/She responsable or not? The way you answered seems more like an evasion of having to pick a side. Sure you can say that X God created the laws that govern this planet, you could also say that an invisible unicorn did it, or a team of faries, what you must keep in mind though is that you need to provide evidence that helps solidify your argument, and not just present it as a faith based opinion...this is a science thread after all.Enjoy...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Scientist study the evidence of the pre-biotic Earth and then determine the conditions based off of that evidence. Are you suggesting that they are flawed in their abilities as scientist to do their job? See above reply... See first reply... This is a loaded statement. You said if scientist 'want to say'. This is obviously untrue. Scientist don't want to say anything, they review the evidence and determine what conditions where like based off of that evidnce. That is the ONLY way it can be determied. What you seem to be implying, basically, is that scientist don't know how to do their job properly and are just speculating. Is that what you're implying? I think we can all agree that to replicate life's origins, since you first need to understand what life is, you need intelligence. The kind that humans show. But that is irrelevant. We know life came into existance. We find that 4 billion years ago no life exists, then we find that 3.5 billion years ago life exists. We determine based off of that evidence that something took place within that time frame. It is suggested that the chemical compounds that were present in the Earth at that time reacted with one another to created the first living organisms. And, to the best of sciences' abilities, it is trying to replicate it. What, from that, are you suggesting that points to the need for an intelligent agent to intervene? And how did you determine that the intelligent agent is needed?Remember, we are trying to replicate life based off of a model of an already ready existing organism. That does take intelligence. Before life existed there was model for life. It is a collection of chemical compounds that form what we call life. There was no goal for life, therefore no intelligence is required.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky