A Logical account of creation

You don't think anyone in here has heard of Huxley before, or the account of him being Darwin's Bulldog?You need to look at it in context. You are viewing it in terms of evolution having been created as a means of repudiating religion, rather than simply being an inference based on certain observations.Charles Darwin himself didn't much see the comparison either. "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." -- Charles DarwinSome people have used evolution as a means of proving to religionists that there is no need of a Creator. That doesn't automatically indict all evolutionists as having a master plan to overthrow the shackles of religion.It's a pointless endeavor, for any allusion you make for evolution being a belief you invariably indict yourself for going against because of your belief.Let's be honest here. Evolutionists gain nothing from evolution, but religion as we know it is directly threatened by it, which is why they fight tooth and nail to subvert it.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Darwin did recognize the problem, AND THEN HE SOLVED IT. Using Articulata as an example he demonstrated that there are transitional stages by which a photosensitive patch can slowly progress to a functional eye. The reasoning is that there exists multiple KNOWN transitional stages through which an eye can evolve.

Why do creationists continue with this canard? Projection?Evolution is an APPLIED science. Biologists accept the theory because it is useful in their research and the theory makes accurate predictions. You might as well claim gravity is a belief system held by astronomers in order to deny the actions of gravity fairies. Since they have not presented original research in the peer reviewed literature which tests their ideas no, they are not a reputable source.

As an analogy, do we need to know where the first germ came from in order to know that germs cause infectious disease? For the same reason, we don't need to know where the first life came from in order to know how life changes over time. There are still huge debates as to the cause of gravity, the actual theory of gravity. Both quantum mechanics and relativity give us different pictures of what gravity is. However, arguments over the THEORY of gravity does not mean that scientists are arguing over the FACT of gravity. As Stephen Jay Gould put it, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome". The fact that life has changed over time and that life shares common ancestry, the fact of evolution, is not disputed by scientists. What is disputed are the finer points of how that change came about, the theory of evolution. Quoting Gould again, "And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered".Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

It seems the only factor that would determine how long it took to create the earth is how much physical matter restrains it. In other words, if the process was sped up, matter be destroyed? So if a god created everything from nothing, he could create each part right where it was. He wouldn't have to create fire and water and wind and dirt and then use them to form the Earth. He could create each planet, sun and so on already formed in its correct position in the universe, with the exact amount of force required to hold it in place. But maybe a creator likes taking basic elements and forming the universe.

After making the "Heaven-and-Earth" system, all the other created things come into being automatically, like the outcome of a perfect CAD/CAM process that takes no time, because God's "computer" is perfect. The Creator just sees the outcome to be good, and those Acts of creative observation make the Days of Creation.Unfortunately, Adam somehow got his nose inside God's "computer" - and here we are, doomed to observe the simulated evolution...

That isn't how Genesis 1 tells it.

And it all happened on Mulberry Street, last night, in a dream. You have no evidence otherwise. Because you have rejected evidence as an indicator of reality. Which so perfectly simulates an old earth, an older universe, and evolution that no other reasonable explanation can provide the depth of correlation of evidence to scientific theory.Doomed? Certainly, if the purpose of your god/s is to befuddle, confuse, mislead and lie to you, then you are indeed doomed to be befuddled, confused, misled and lied to -- about anything you think these god/s tell you as well.Congratulations, you have made all knowledge superfluous and irrelevant, and any fantasy is now as good as another.Enjoy