Evolutionism and Creationism?

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Bushman

God can create, God can destroy. God can reward, and God can punish. Where was God when Hitler killed six million Jews? Where was the Almighty to protecct his people. They were his loyal followers for 5,000 years. Why didn't God protect them.

Devout Christians would say that is for God to know, and for us to not understand. When we die and go to heaven, all these questions will be answered.

I reiterate, that's what devout Christians would tell you.

Edit: In addition Christians believe that Satan is allowed to control the Earth by God, to test us, to see if we are worthy or not to join God in Heaven. Take a look at the "Book of Job" to see what I'm talking about. God allowed Satan to take everything away from Job, his family and his belongings to test his faith.

[Sphinx]

Definately creationism. Whoever said "We evolved from primates because Science has proved it" you are way out of line with that statement. Just so you know science has not proved jack crap on humans evolving from primates. It's just a scientific theory and nothing more.

Here's a link I hope helps some of you out.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Read on more than just the origins of man from this site. There's a lot of useful information from this site.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by G-Train

Once again, this is only if you believe that the world was literally created in 7 days, and that Genesis is literal truth. Creationism at it's very core though, says that God created the Universe, Heaven, and Earth. What has science found to disprove that God did these things?

I'm also saying that how do we know for sure that the dinosaurs predate man by millions of years? How can we possibly know anything for sure? One person already brought "the world is flat, the world is round" argument into the discussion. Several Hundred years ago, "Scientists" were absolutely convinced that the world was flat, as we all now know, that turned out to not be the case. Isn't it possible that even today, accepted "evidence" that science turns up is flawed?

Edit: How do we know that the scientific procedure of "carbon dating" is not flawed as well? Maybe we aren't really doing it right, or maybe there are too many variables, i.e. weather, and enviornmental changes that can alter fossils?

Look at Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon <b>the <u>circle</u> of the earth,</b> and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

Long before science or the Roman Catholic Church decided that the earth was flat the Bible said it was round. See? Religion--and science--can be wrong. But the Bible was right the whole time. Interesting, huh?

Carbon 14 dating is suspect for those very reasons that you mention.

Do you know that the currents in the ocean were found to exist because of the Bible?

Back in the 1800s, Matthew Maury undertook a research project based on Scripture, and once again confirmed the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

Maury was in charge of the Depot of Charts and Instruments in the Hydrographic Office of the United States Navy from 1841-1861. He was a Christian who loved and respected the Word of God. One day in the 8th Psalm, he read the following words (vv. 3-8): " When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; what is man, that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that Thou visitest him? For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands: Thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and <B>whatsoever passeth through the <U>paths of the seas.</U></B>"

Maury, on the basis of the Bible, concluded that there are well-established wind circuits, and that there are literally "paths in the sea" - that is , definite currents in the ocean. He reasoned that if these wind currents and ocean currents could be located and plotted, this information would be of great value to marine navigators. Utilizing this information, the sailing vessels could be directed along routes that would take advantage of these sea and air currents, reducing by many days the time required to traverse the seas. Many of Maury's contemporaries, of course, would have scoffed at Maury. They would have said, "Maury, do you really mean that you are going to spend hour after hour on some wild goose chase searching through those dusty old logs and charts you have in your office just because the Bible says there are paths in the sea?"

That is precisely what Maury did, however, and the Biblical statements were precisely verified. Maury found and plotted the wind circuits and the ocean currents. The ocean currents include, for example, the great Gulf Current - a "path in the sea" forty miles wide and 2000 feet deep flowing from the Gulf of Mexico up through the Atlantic. This current has a tremendous influence on the climate of England, Ireland, Europe, and the Scandinavian countries. The average winter temperature on the west coast of Norway, for example, is about two degrees centigrade, or two degrees above freezing. Ordinarily, of course, we would expect far lower temperatures for a country that far north.

(see also http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-219.htm)

IMAGINE! THE BIBLE IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE! WOW.

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

One thing I noticed about closed minded people is that they shut down when they can prove nothing about what they are saying, and someone calls them on it. I'm guessing your shutdown is going to be here real soon. So.....evidence......you have some.......the floor is yours.....

I hope you see the hypocrisy in your statement. He asks you to prove the Bible is not fact.

Your proof: History is a joke. They haven't found the remains of Goliath.

Lack of proof does not prove something wrong. Evidence proves something wrong.

He cannot provide evidence that the Bible is fact, but you cannot provide evidence that it is not fact.

If you can, I have yet to see this evidence.

You are bashing him for not providing evidence to support his side, but you have yet to provide evidence for your side, either.

[Commander PK]

Skinsfan51, that is all interesting stuff to be sure. This is an example of what I'm getting at. Science does not disprove religious teachings and scriputure, and those same teachings and scriputures do not disprove Science. In fact, as you have just shown they often will support each other. Why does Science have to be wrong, for Religion to be right, and vice-versa?

[Mister Happy]

Skinsfan51, do you know what the origins of The Bible (as we have it today) are?

[dchogs]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Look at Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon <b>the <u>circle</u> of the earth,</b> and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

Long before science or the Roman Catholic Church decided that the earth was flat the Bible said it was round. See? Religion--and science--can be wrong. But the Bible was right the whole time. Interesting, huh?

not to nitpick, but circular doesn't not mean spherical. a circle is 2D and is flat. maybe the bible was completely wrong. it certainly led to the deaths at the hands of the church of numerous scientists that were teaching the spherical geometry of the earth. galellio was also forced by the church to renounce his findings that supported copernicus.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by G-Train

Skinsfan51, that is all interesting stuff to be sure. This is an example of what I'm getting at. Science does not disprove religious teachings and scriputure, and those same teachings and scriputures do not disprove Science. In fact, as you have just shown they often will support each other. Why does Science have to be wrong, for Religion to be right, and vice-versa?

I don't think science has to be wrong, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are saying that science=evolution. They are not one in the same. I think science backs up the Bible, hands down. There is plenty of evidence for that. I just dont' have a hundred hours to post everything. I work a job, too. But I do think that science has been friendly to the Bible when the evidence is looked at unbiasly. The problem comes from evolutionists interpreting it through evolutionary glasses. They can't see it any other way, or they refuse to.

[pez]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

...OR feed the poor, help the sick and wounded, build and finance hospitals and orphanages, and...and...and...and...FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. The list is endless.

Don't forget the crusades!!

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Now, I KNOW atheism was the moving force behind Nazism and Communism and every other evil "ism" in the last 125 years. Should we count the MILLIONS of deaths those movements have caused and STILL cause? [/b]

Adolf Hiter

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

[MrWill]

Originally posted by Zero Cool

I hope you see the hypocrisy in your statement. He asks you to prove the Bible is not fact.

Your proof: History is a joke. They haven't found the remains of Goliath.

Lack of proof does not prove something wrong. Evidence proves something wrong.

He cannot provide evidence that the Bible is fact, but you cannot provide evidence that it is not fact.

If you can, I have yet to see this evidence.

You are bashing him for not providing evidence to support his side, but you have yet to provide evidence for your side, either.

There you go.....I give you a perfect segway into the evidence you claim exists....and you twist the conversation yet again. You are now asking me to prove that the bible is NOT fact. Do you see how ludicrous your thinking is? You claim that not only is there evidence....but that there is a LOT of evidence. But, not one piece has been presented. And, I suspect that what he calls 'evidence' will show us nothing. I am not here to prove evolutionism.....I have said this a few times. Neither is fact.......but, at least I offered up some of the observations that lead scientists to believe evolution does take place. He gets defensive and makes grandiose claims of the mountains of support that the bible has in the scientific community. The fact is.....he has nothing to hang his hat on in this conversation. Just some story of a PHD creationist who supposedly put a PHD evolutionist to shame. No details....nothing. I would be willing to bet that this PHD simply pointed out that evolution is not proven. But, how, in the name of Zeus' butthole, could he possibly have supported his own view? Unless of course, he turned it into, 'well, you can't prove it isn't true'. This is a fools argument.

Sorry zero cool....I was responding to him through you.....but, you get my point.

[Mister Happy]

I agree with you.

I forgot he said "a LOT of evidence." That is hilarious. I would love to see that.

He has no evidence, and he knows it.

Ask him where the Bible comes from.

[stevenaa]

What surprises me is the number who say they believe in a higher power, a "Supreme Being", but scoff at the notion that He may have created life. Certainly if He could kick off the big bang and set evolution in progress, he could just as easily have "Spoken" life into being. Comical how you can say you believe in a God, but yet can't accept any possibility that doesn't fit our physical "scientific laws". Seems like just by starting this whole mess, He pretty much violated all of the physical laws you cling so stubbornly too.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Just a few notes on random thoughts I had while reading the last several pages:

1) Natural selection is a theoretical mechanism; evolution is a theoretical history.

1b) Panel's corn/maize example wasn't even an example of natural selection, it was an example of artificial selection (although strict reductionists would argue that they are one and the same).

2) Evolution does not necessitate the appearing of "higher" or "lower" beings in any chronological order.

3) The evolutionary history does not indicate that humans evolved from gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, or other great apes we are familiar with.

4) Natural selection and evolutionary adaptation absolutely do not explain every attribute of every living species; nor are they designed to do so.

5) Evolution makes no moral statements about human behavior. Specifically, a theory that puts forth that we are descended from primates does not "give us license" to "act as primates."

6) The teleological argument for the existence of God--the argument to design--in order to be successful must answer the following question: design to what purpose? It HAS TO answer this question authoritatively because establishment of purpose is a necessary condition for establishment of design.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by stevenaa

Seems like just by starting this whole mess, He pretty much violated all of the physical laws you cling so stubbornly too.

How so? It's pretty much accepted among (for example) superstring theorists that the laws of physics--including laws governing the nature of time itself and even the fabric of geometry--completely break down if we try to reconstruct what happened "before" the Big Bang. (I put "before" in raised-eyebrow quotation marks because it really has no meaning in this situation.)

[MrWill]

Originally posted by Zero Cool

I agree with you.

I forgot he said "a LOT of evidence." That is hilarious. I would love to see that.

He has no evidence, and he knows it.

Ask him where the Bible comes from.

Well, he should at least know that it was written by imperfect beings like ourselves. It wasn't dropped from the sky into someone's lap.

To all religious folk reading this thread. There are many people that I have great respect for that have chosen, or always were a part of, organized religion. I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes in God, and chooses to refer to the bible for verses that strengthen their point of view. However, if you read that book, and take it all as FACT.....I do have a problem. That kind of ignorance is dangerous. My intent is not to badger you.....I am just trying to show that MANY bible worshipers are trapped inside a little box, mostly because their family put them there. They believe this book word for word so vehemently, that they don't even CONSIDER other possibilities. It is not beneficial to the human condition to have a population that cannot think for itself.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

It is not beneficial to the human condition to have a population that cannot think for itself.

I feel the same way about public school kids who are not given the choice to think about the accepted theories of origins. They are TOLD how to think. "Evolution is fact, evolution is fact, evolution is fact," is all they hear. As far as I know, they aren't even told the myriad of problem that one has to deal with to follow that religion (that's right. it's a RELIGION.) That's a crying shame.

It's family time...I'll respond to more later. Hopefully, it will be seen my most that there is a lot of hot air floating around in these posts.

[MrWill]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

I feel the same way about public school kids who are not given the choice to think about the accepted theories of origins. They are TOLD how to think. "Evolution is fact, evolution is fact, evolution is fact," is all they hear. As far as I know, they aren't even told the myriad of problem that one has to deal with the follow that religion (that's right. it's a RELIGION.) That's a crying shame.

It's family time...I'll respond to more later. Hopefully, it will be seen my most that there is a lot of hot air floating around in these posts.

I graduated High School, and got a bachelor's degree in Biology. Not once did any teacher of mine use the word FACT when discussing evolution. I know I wasn't the first person on here to say that the THEORY of evolution was presented to us as just that....a THEORY.

It is my opinion that when there is a concept that seems to conflict with your own, the feeling is that it is a threat to you and that it is being forced on you. When, in reality, it is just an idea......one that nags at you because, in your mind, it destroys the fabric of your belief system. One thing I have noticed in this conversation is that, as an open-minded individual, it doesn't bother me one way or the other, whether creationism or evolutionism can be proven. In fact, it would be very enlightening for me if either one of these ideas is ever proven. I can have this conversation and not feel like I am being attacked. That is the difference between me and say a fanatical bible thumper. They are offended.....and in a very real way, they see me as the devil for trying to alter their perception.

[robert reynolds jr]

when I listen to someone or read about a topic that states things as "facts" my critical thinking abilities kick in. Critical thinking was taught to me when I was still in Community College many years ago.

Critical thinking encompasses a persons ability to basically keep an open mind when learning about something. Gather as much empirical evidence as possible, from as many resources as possible, weigh the evidence, and make your own informed decisions.

I have learned from my own experiences that there are very few "facts" in this world. There are LAWS - for example, the LAW of gravity - however, very few "facts" ... only opinions.

My opinion on the topic of this thread ( I have studied creationism and evolutionism using my critical thinking abilities) is that I believe that the "building blocks" of life... amino acids specifically - arrived here on this planet billions of years ago. The required energy sources to "create" life (our sun, and of course water) from these amino acids seems plausible. However, many millions or billions of years would be needed to form the complex species present on this planet today and in the past... evolution? Possibly, seems plausible to me.

So, I suppose that I believe in extraterrestrial creationism and planetary enviromental evolution. Just my opinion... I agree with those that have stated that there are no "facts" on this topic.

[Huly]

This is a very touchy subject for me. I went to a southern baptist high school that taught both. I was allowed to choose what I believe and I chose creation. My question is how can one say historians make mistakes yet scientist do not? If you have ever read the bible you would know that the bible yes was written by man, but God told them what to write (example the burning bush, the angels). God used people and other items to spread his word and to form the bible. Coming from God makes the writing infallable to me. Scientist are starting to prove more and more facts that lead to creation and refrence the bible.

See the book: The Case of the Creator by Lee Strobel

It show facts on both sides and how science has changed. This was wriiten by a gentleman who believed in Darwinism etc. but through research he discovered science leads to creation in more aspect than one.

Some people are Evil (Hitler) and they state they do things for God but they are wrong! If they have studied the word they would have known what was right.

Example- Hitler claimed to kill Jews for God. Whose God was he killing them for? The Jews are God's chosen people if you read both the old and new testament. Why would he want his own people killed.

People will claim they are christians but not lead a christian life. People use God in politics etc just to try to one get people's attention, 2 to get believers to believe they are right and 3 to try to get followers and justify their actions. This is all wrong and not what God intended.

[Huly]

There is certain facts (i know this will tick some off but this is what I believe and I in no way want to step on anyones toes)

amino acids- if the world was rich in amino acids there would be a high content of nitrogen since amino acids are nitrogenous, but the earliest earliest sediments discovered have olny had a low .015 percent nitrogen. Jim Brooks 1985

There all kinds of things out there that can also be taken as fact!

[stevenaa]

There are also facts on how you multiply the amount of Space dust that falls on the earth yearly by the bazillions of years it is supposed to have existed. The numbers don't work. I don't remember the exact number but the mass of the earth would be larger by an exponential number.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by stevenaa

There are also facts on how you multiply the amount of Space dust that falls on the earth yearly by the bazillions of years it is supposed to have existed. The numbers don't work. I don't remember the exact number but the mass of the earth would be larger by an exponential number.

Don't forget that the earth loses mass as well when dust and gas particles escape the atmosphere.

Oh, another question for the person who (much earlier) posited that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How, exactly, is this the case?

[jpillian]

Here's my take:

First off, how do you ever PROVE there is a Creator? If we are all part of Creation, how could we ever possibly know what is beyond Creation? To try and prove/disprove God is futile. So, if you're trying to do so based on the merits of Evolution/Creationism -- you'll be sorely disappointed your entire life.

Secondly, I believe, God the Father is/was the Creator of all things in the Universe. Did He use a Big Bang to create all matter? Who knows -- looks like it. But that's the scientific flavor of the day. And it's all based on observations of phenomenons which have taken place "millions and millions" of light years away.

The fallacy I believe which all historical science is based on is that it wholly depends on constants. The speed of light is a constant. Radioactive decay of all matter is based on constants. In all parts of the universe, for all of time since "The Big Bang", none of these constants have ever varied. I think there is a very good possibility that these constants have in fact been degenerating for quite some time now.

The key event which triggered this "slowing" was the advent of Sin entering into Creation. Through the introduction of Free Will into Creation, God allowed for paths which were no longer centered around His Good and Perfect Will.

When Eve took a bite from the fruit, when Lucifier decided that his own will should be done rather than God's, a second path -- other than God's physically emerged. Prior to this, all things were in order. This in turn was the introduction of entropy into Creation. The introduction of the tendency for all ordered system to go to disorder. Instead of 1 path, there emerged 2 paths, then 4, then 8 -- and it has geometrically diluted the remaining essence of God's Creation through to this day -- who knows how many years later.

Thus Sin was the metaphysical beginning of what we now observe as the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- or entropy.

This Theory, would also hold explanatory power over how radioactive carbon dating and potassium argon dating show the Earth and the Moon to be billions of years old . As entropy/sin has continued to increase at an exponential rate, all "constants" have slown down. Thus, the current rate of decay, makes everything out to be a LOT older than it really is.

Same goes for the Big Bang Theory/Red Shift and the true age of the Universe. If light has been slowing down at an exponential rate (and recent studies have shown that it is slowing) then it would appear that the light originated from that much farther away.

Anyways, that's the "cusp" of My Theory of how things are the way they are. Doesn't have to be accepted by everyone in the World, or on this board, or heck even in my household. But it does help me answer some of the questions the Creator has left unanswered to my level of satisfaction.

BTW -- this is actually MY theory, in so far as this was spoon fed to me by no one; however, I just ran across the gist of this proposed theory here after typing all this in (shoulda saved myself the trouble ):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

[spm]

Evolution has my vote. There is no debate. Just do some reading on both sides of the subject. Creationalism always has an agenda of disproving evolution. Scientists have an agenda of seeing what explanation makes sense. That speaks for itself.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

There you go.....I give you a perfect segway into the evidence you claim exists....and you twist the conversation yet again. You are now asking me to prove that the bible is NOT fact. Do you see how ludicrous your thinking is? You claim that not only is there evidence....but that there is a LOT of evidence. But, not one piece has been presented. And, I suspect that what he calls 'evidence' will show us nothing. I am not here to prove evolutionism.....I have said this a few times. Neither is fact.......but, at least I offered up some of the observations that lead scientists to believe evolution does take place. He gets defensive and makes grandiose claims of the mountains of support that the bible has in the scientific community. The fact is.....he has nothing to hang his hat on in this conversation. Just some story of a PHD creationist who supposedly put a PHD evolutionist to shame. No details....nothing. I would be willing to bet that this PHD simply pointed out that evolution is not proven. But, how, in the name of Zeus' butthole, could he possibly have supported his own view? Unless of course, he turned it into, 'well, you can't prove it isn't true'. This is a fools argument. Sorry zero cool....I was responding to him through you.....but, you get my point.

As I pondered a reply to your looking-down-your-nose approach, SkinsFan2456, I had to ask myself a question. Do I want to spend an hour or more writing out paragraph after paragraph of evidence that supports the Bible as the Word of God, and Creationism as a scientifically viable answer for the origins question? I could do that, but I'd be shot at the end and weary as can be from typing so much, and I know that you are not REALLY interested in the evidence anyway. No answer will be an "answer" for you. I already know that. I've dealt with guys like you for almost a decade. As a matter of fact, I have learned a long time ago that trying to debate a guy like you is fruitless. What I will write about I write for the sake of the <I>others </I>reading this post, lest the actually think that you are right about the Creationism. That it's a bunch of fairy tales based on a book that you think has never been proven historically or scientifically accurate. The truth is, you are completely wrong.

<b>My Story</b>

I want to tell all of you what happened to me back in 1995. It's quite long, so I apologize. But I think you'll find it interesting reading. This is a true account. I got married that year and we used some of the money from our wedding to buy a Macintosh computer. The internet was just getting started and we decided to get an internet connection. During that process I was told of a <I>local </I>online "bulletin board" that I could post to. I thought, "Hey, this would be a great way to meet other people and try to be a witness for the Lord to them." So I started posting. Before too long I found myself in a debate similar to the one we are having right now, only more in-depth and more intense. The guy I was debating, I learned later, had a college degree in biology. I did not (and still don't) have any science degree. I do have a degree in Theology (Th G, 1996).

As our debate progressed it became increasingly clear that I could not keep up with this guy's "proofs" of evolution, because he was using a ton of deep scientific jargon, names, etc. that I did not understand. I have to admit that it became quite intimidating--not because I failed to believe the Bible I had been studying for years, but because I could not answer this man in a manner that would match his understanding of science. So what did I do? I decided to call the man who is considered a <B>giant</B> in Creationist circles, <B>Dr. Duane Gish</B>, of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Gish had credentials. He is a Ph D in biochemistry (University of California, Berkley - 1953). He's recognized as an outstanding scientist and author, having penned over 20 books on scientific issues. I knew he was known all over the world and I wasn't confident that he would even be willing to help me, but I could at least try.

<B>Nine Pages!

</B>I challenged the man I was debating to show me any true "transitional" fossils. I knew that the fossil record was very scarce in this area: that's just a fact that is still true today. There really are on transitional fossils. (See Dr. Gish's article on this subject from May 2004 here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-250.htm ) I thought I had the guy. What I wasn't prepared for was his reply. He sent me <B>nine pages of supposed transitional fossils. </B>Of course, I didn't know much about any of them. I'm not a scientist. It was at that point that I turned to Dr. Gish for help. I wrote him a letter and sent along the nine pages of "transitional" fossils. Much to my joy, a few weeks later I received a one-page (stationary size) handwritten letter from Dr. Gish that basically said (and he used these words), "He's bluffing you." He then, in a few sentences, proceeded to demonstrate why his entire nine pages of "proof" was a bunch of bunk. Man, I was fired up!! It was nice to see an answer from a man who knew as much (and more, for sure) biology than the guy I was debating. He only needed a small piece of paper to answer nine pages of lies. It was then that I decided to take it a step further.

<B>A Public Debate</B>

After seeing Dr. Gish in action I badly wanted to hold a public debate between Dr. Gish and a local Ph D. (Just a note: All the Ph Ds at The Institute for Creation Research will <I>only</I> debate other Ph Ds. The guy I was debating was not a Ph D, so I did not seek to have him debate Dr. Gish. It would have been no contest--It wasn't anyway, but stay tuned...) So around August 1996 I started to call the local colleges in my area: <I>Rochester Institute of Technology, The University of Rochester, S.U.N.Y. Brockport College. </I>One after the other responded with, "No thanks. I don't want to debate him." Finally, at <I>Brockport State </I>I talked with Dr. Philip Hewitt Ph D (Paleontology), the director and professor of the Biology department at the college. He refused to debate Dr. Gish, but agreed to a "discussion." The date was set in October of that year and the plans were made.

<B>Almost Canceled

</B>I had people from all over the state of New York calling me for details about the debate. They wanted directions to the college, hotels to stay in, etc. I was glad to see such interest. During the day of the event a bunch of people from our church canvassed the entire school with flyers inviting them to the debate. <B>Two weeks</B> before the debate was to take place Dr. Hewitt called me and told me that he decided that he didn't want to do it. (You can imagine how hard it was to remain calm!) He wanted to change the format drastically, and Dr. Gish, knowing such tactics from over 300 public debates, refused to give up his time. All I could think about were the people who were traveling hundreds of miles to see this debate, and I had no way of contacting them to tell them it wasn't going to happen. Fortunately, Dr. Hewitt allowed us to use the lecture hall so that Dr. Gish could just have a sort-of seminar. That wasn't our desire, but if the competition drops out, what can you do?

<B>We're On!

</B>People kept calling and asking about the debate. I told them it was to be a seminar on scientific creationism because Dr. Gish's opponent dropped out. Many were still coming. The <I>day before </I>the seminar Dr. Hewitt called me and asked if he could return to just "sit in" on the discussion. BUT, his only request was that he be able to bring TWO other people with him to sit by his side. One was a retired professor of philosophy and one was a former graduate student of his named <B>Elmer Batitis. </B><U>I was speechless</U>. Why? You want to guess the name of the guy I had been debating for months and months and months on the online bulletin board? You want to guess the name of the guy that sent me nine pages of "transitional fossils"? <B><U>Elmer Batitis</U>. </B>Now, you might not find that too amazing. But within the city of Rochester, NY, and the surrounding area there are over one MILLION people. What are the chances that <B>Elmer Batitis </B>would be <I>the</I> graduate of Dr. Hewitt that he wanted on the platform with him? I was thrilled!!!! Mr. Batitis was going to get a firsthand taste of Dr. Gish, and I couldn't wait.

Dr. Hewitt made it clear that he didn't want to debate (something he changed his mind about as the night progressed), but just wanted to sit in and perhaps ask a few questions. I called Dr. Gish and asked him if it was ok for him to be up against three people. I offered to find another local creationist that could stand by his side to even the odds. Dr. Gish said, "No thanks. I can do it by myself; no problem."

<B>The Debate

</B>When my wife and I arrived at the college to get set up, Elmer Batitis was already there. He had several tables set up in front of the entrances to the lecture hall, and they were filled with all kinds of "proofs" of evolution and mockeries of creationism. He was actually calling out to people like a peanut vendor at a baseball game: "Come and get it. Come get your evolutionary propaganda!" He was a downright evangelist! LOL. By the time the debate started the lecture hall was JAM PACKED with over <B>400 people. </B>Many, many students were there from the school, including most of Dr. Hewitt's biology class. The intensity in the air was amazing.

The format of the "discussion" was to be 50 minutes for the first guy and 50 minutes for his opponent with 10 minute rebuttals by each at the end. As you can see, the very format was set up for a debate. Dr. Gish spoke first and it was quite clear from the beginning that he was prepared. At the podium he has his notes, and dozens of 3x5 cards containing all the facts, proofs, etc. for creationism and against evolution. <I>He never once mentioned the name of God, the Bible or any other biblical reference the entire time he spoke. </I>All he used were scientific evidences. One after another after another after another flowed from his mouth and up on his overhead screen. When he finished and sat down, Dr. Hewitt breathed out a sigh (literally) into his microphone and said, "That was a tour de force. There is no way I can answer all that in 50 minutes. It would take me a <U>month</U>." Everyone in the room thought, "Well, you have the same time Dr. Gish did. Present your position." But it never happened. Dr. Hewitt wasn't prepared. He had no notes, no 3x5 cards, nothing prepared. He just rambled on about various topics as he tried, in vain, to promote evolutionary theory and denounce creationism as "religion." In addition, he did what all evolutionists eventually do when they know the facts just don't support them: he started trying to belittle Dr. Gish's character. It's very poor antics, but typical in these situations. You see, if it call all be dismissed a silly religion, then no one will take it seriously. It was so bad that at one point a man in the front row stood up in anger and SHOUTED, "WILL YOU JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, DR. HEWITT??!!!" He was totally defeated by Dr. Gish's arguments and he knew it. It was very embarrassing to watch, to be honest. I almost felt bad for Dr. Hewitt.

<B>The Philosopher Speaks

</B>Dr. Hewitt finally relinquished the microphone to his colleague, the retired Ph D in philosophy. The FIRST question this man asked Dr. Gish was, "Where did Cain get his wife?" Dr. Gish's reply was (<I>now don't miss this), </I>"Ok, I'll answer you, but you have asked me a question from <B>the Bible</B> and I haven't mentioned the Bible at all this entire night." <B>At that moment Dr. Hewitt spoke into his microphone these words, "You've been talking about the Bible all night." </B>HUH??<B> </B>Folks, I have the entire debate on two cassette tapes. I've listened to them over and over and over. Dr. Gish never once mentioned God, the Bible, Jesus, nothing. All science. Yet, Dr. Hewitt was so blinded by his belief in evolution, as well as automatically equating creationism with religion, that he assumed that Dr. Gish has made reference to the Bible or Jesus or something. But he didn't.

I should mentioned that during the debate Mr. Elmer Batitis kept leaving the room and going back out to his tables. People that were out in the lobby said to me later that he was <I>actually banging his head against the brick wall in frustration. </I>The guy was going nuts. By the time the debate ended I think the entire crowed felt sorry for the utter beating that Dr. Hewitt and his boys took. I actually had an evolutionist approach me afterwards and ask where he can complain about how his position was represented. I told him to complain to the school. LOL. It was a great night and a great victory for the creationist position. We heard many responses and positive feedback during the weeks to follow.

<B>The Kicker

</B>After saying all that, here is the kicker. Elmer Batitis and I met up again in the online bulletin board forum and other who knew the debate was going to take place asked about the event. I sent some of the details I've listed in this post and told them that it was a total blowout. <B>Elmer also wrote and SAID THAT DR. HEWITT BEAT DR. GISH IN THE DEBATE! </B> That sealed it for me. That showed me that truth in this hotly debated subject. Evolution is just a bunch of lies; Creation did happen. There is a God who cares and loves you and me, and He has a plan for each of our lives. LIFE HAS PURPOSE and is not just some "random cosmic accident."

You see, folks, it's not about "facts" and "evidence" at all. It's about not wanting to submit to a Creator and have that Creator tell you the best way to live your life. Facts are irrelevant. It's a <I>moral </I>problem that keeps the evolutionary theory going. <I>"GOD CANNOT HAVE CREATED IT ALL, for it God created it all then I'll have to confess that there IS a Creator and that He created ME. Then I'd have to admit that I should do what He says since He created me." </I><B>God Himself could have stood in Dr. Gish's place that night and presented all the reasons why Creationism is right and evolution is hopeless, but it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. Because in the end, as I was taught over and over in Bible school, <I>man is going to do what man wants to do. </B></I>So... help yourself, men. But don't pass off your faith-based evolutionary religion as being factual. It's quite empty.

With all this being said, there is no further reason for me to type for hours the clear proofs and facts. If a guy can get pummeled by a scientist and still retain his pride and arrogance, what do I hope to accomplish by spending more time listing facts that won't be read?

What I will do is provide some links that will detail the facts of creation, so that if there is one who is truly looking for answers, you can at least study them for yourself and make an intelligent choice based upon <i>all</i> the facts.

Links for further study:

<OL>

<B><LI>Some evidence for a young earth</B> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm , http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html , http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-075b.htm , http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-035b.htm</LI>

<B><LI>Design</B> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-223.htm , http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-363.htm , http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-341.htm</LI></OL>

Those will do for now. If these things are true, then they line up with what the Bible says about creation. They are "proof." I did not even provide any links that deal with the problems of evolution, and there are many. I'm sure I'll get some snide responses, but that's ok. I may not even reply. What more can be said? I'm tired and I'm going to bed.

BTW, SkinsFan2456, you never answered my question about the eye. I didn't ask you <I>how, </I>I asked you <I>why. </I>Why did the eye evolve at all? Nothing had ever seen anything. What need was there for a eye?

Here's a quick hit for my boy, Ancalagon the Black, who asked about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-141.htm