I have spent the past 12 years looking into the Creation vs Evolution controversy, and the conclusion I have come to is that we have indeed been Created by a Master Designer / Engineer -- who we often refer to as God.

I have also come to the conclusion that the earth is NOT billions of years old as we have been told via the public schools, Television, and (many) books but rather the evidence is (more and more) pointing to a very young earth.

Anyone who is interested may visit my web site at www.earthage.org.

God Bless You,

RB1

Praise the Lord!

I think that we must always be tready to be able to give a defense of what we believe in.
In the times that we are living in and with all the confusion that exists we can't take a chance and just sit back, some may be having a laugh at the so called frenzy, but what we are doing is defending the truth, and making sure that others hear it also.


Another site that can be of help is WWW.Equip.com which is the christian research Institute site.


thanks! & God bless!

Last year I wrote a paper over Evolution vs. Creation. I found alot of points that disprove evolution. Here are a few:
1. First Law of Thermodynamics-makes it impossible for the Earth to be formed out of nothing.
2. The Biogentic Law- life can only come from life, and only like animals can give birth to like animals
3. When oil and coal are carbon dated they can only show that they were from 10,000 to 14,000 yrs. old. For evolutionist to be correct they should date back to 50,000 yr ago. (Besides, an oil field can only hold oil for 100,000 yrs. before the rock later will explode)
4. Evolutionists are not able to present fossil evidence to establish the evolutionary stages in the animals they infer as evolved. However archeologists have found human fossils dating back as far back as the age of dinosaurs.
5. If the sun is as old as scientist claim, why hasn't the solar system been swept empty? The sun acts as a vacuum that is supposed to be pushing everything away and out of our solar system.
6. The earth contains a magnetic field that decreases by half every 1400 yrs. This means that earth should not be capable of holding life indefinitely.
7. The body give proof against evolution. DNA is so complex that it is impossible for it to just come into existence. The human eye is so complex that it made Darwin think twice about his theory. It has 100,000 different functions and repairs itself at night. No other thing on earth can do that.
8. Dr. Mary Leakey discovered human footprints perserved in volcanic rockthat dated back to the dinosaur age but resembles a human footprint.
If you think about it, evolution is just a religion. There is no proof for it that is why it is called a theory. At least Creation can be proven through nature itself unlike Evolution which has been disproven several times over.
I just don't understand how someone can base there faith on something that has been disproven so many times.

fyi: I wrote what is above. I just forgot to log in.
Jessica

I like your post JC. It's distinct, definitive, written well, etc., but I have one question about point 3. The first half of the point I understand and agree with, but how did you come up with the information about the oil fields?

Some of the points JC made are in the creation videos
Once again, www.creationevidence.net/offers.shtml

Sorry, only broadband can benefit from these videos.

Peter

There are resources all over the internet to support creationism. Anyone who wants to check out the many scientists of many different fields and their creationist viewpoints and justification for those viewpoints can find them with little effort indeed. It's as easy as going to Google and entering "creationism". You'll find enough links to keep you busy reading for months. That's why it's absolutely pointless to respond to the one-sentence slams posted by unbelieving troublemakers who are not seeking answers, but only seeking to create discord.
It seems that some people are very intent on publishing their personal knowledge. Is your motivation to persuade the poster that they are wrong? Is anyone living in a fantasy world, actually believing that such a person will even read or consider your points? Or is it just your intent to let anyone who will read it know how much you know? I wonder.
There's nothing anyone can say in support of creationism that isn't available to everyone with internet access. There's nothing anyone can say that is different or better or more persuasive than what the person posting the original slam can find anywhere they look if they want to look.
So I question your motives.
I could write as much or more as anyone else on the topic. I've learned over a period of time and many discussions that it is a total waste of everyone's time to respond to such one-sentence slams.

But, if you like playing along, or if you just want to display your knowledge, be my guest. But remember, whatever you know was given to you by the Lord; you don't have an exclusive on it.

Good point guest.

Defense of the truth needs to be given from a humble spirit. God is the one who provides knowledge and wisdom.

Pete

Templar wrote: › I like your post JC. It's distinct, definitive, written well, etc., but I have one question about point 3. The first half of the point I understand and agree with, but how did you come up with the information about the oil fields?

Not meaning to but in here but the answer is simple. It is becouse of the pressure that both the oil and the top and bottom rock layers creat. it is like a bloon that is over inflated it will only hold for so long with the presser that is built up becouse of the air that is inside the bloon is forceing the rubber to stay at an expanded state thusly waring away at the stringth of the rubber, eventuley causeing it to explode.

So think of the rock layers as the bloon and the oil as the air that is slowly over inflateing the bloon, the same is also true for valcanic eruptions

I think many evolutionists reject creationism out of hand after listening to the "young earth" hypothesis. May I recommend a site that is more scientific and less religious in nature? http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
Dr. Hugh Ross is worth checking out, I've heard him speak on more than one occasion and finally don't feel like I left my brain at the door of the church. If you are of the young earth bent yourselves, I only ask that you give him a fair chance. I've heard lots of "rants" against him, but not a single scientific argument that stood up.

If you want to find a "scientific answer that stood up" to the contentions of Hugh Ross, just go to AnswersInGenesis.com - you'll find all you need right there.

Sorry serious, but as usual I find lots of reference to issues of biblical interpretation and out-dated scientific data. These folks are clearly not up to date with most recent discoveries in Astrophysics. I fully admit however that I am not a scientist and so am somewhat at the mercy of others explaining things to me. In my opinion the young earth approach always seems to concentrate more on it's "axe to grind" than real science.
I'm interested in your position on Kent Hovind.
In all fairness I will continue to take a deeper look at the site, thanks for the reference.

one of the biggest problems the young earth/universe view has is starlite, how does it get from a star millions of lightyears away in a mere 10 000 years or so? The site mentioned above simply states they don't have the answer, the possible answers given are extremely problematic so they side step them. The big debate still seems to center around the speed of light. Einsteins' e=mc2 is pretty much accepted don't you agree? the c stands for the CONSTANT speed of light. Any variation in C negates the possibility of any life occuring. God created the universe ex-nihilo, he also created all the physical laws that govern it, and abides by His own laws.

Guest, please back up your contention with quotes from AnswersInGenesis and show me the outdated scientific data.

It's simple enough to say what you said, now back it up.

Thanks.

seekinghokmah wrote: › one of the biggest problems the young earth/universe view has is starlite, how does it get from a star millions of lightyears away in a mere 10 000 years or so? The site mentioned above simply states they don't have the answer, the possible answers given are extremely problematic so they side step them. The big debate still seems to center around the speed of light. Einsteins' e=mc2 is pretty much accepted don't you agree? the c stands for the CONSTANT speed of light. Any variation in C negates the possibility of any life occuring. God created the universe ex-nihilo, he also created all the physical laws that govern it, and abides by His own laws.

God created water too, and you can boil it into steam. Nothing should be assumed to be constant and unchangable.

There are many possibilites regarding the speed of light and the distance of stars, and if you'd like to get beyond what you've been told, you can find plenty of information on the internet about it.

There is no possible way for anyone to authenticate the supposed distance of the stars, as they claim they can. There is no one that can prove that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe...who has measured it from anywhere but here on earth? Light can be bent, light can possibly be affected in many ways by elements not fully understood. The problem with modern "science" is that it is full of presuppositions and conjecture, and cases built for hypotheses on theory and uncertain premises. The existence of "black holes" illustrate that light is subject to gravity and who knows what else.

If your starting point is that all science is correct, because their theories and contentions, though unprovable, absolutely must be correct, then good luck getting you to ever see it any other way.

I don't believe any of it. I'll go with what the Bible says. If the Bible said cows mutate into Chevrolets, I'd believe it, and if the Bible says God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, I'll believe that without trying to accomodate evolution in the process. If you want to put "science" above the word of God, that's your right. You have to start by saying "The bible doesn't really mean days, it just says days, but what it really means is millions of years". When you're done saying that, why not just throw it in the trash, since you don't believe it anyway?
"Oh, I believe it, it just doesn't mean what it says - man's wisdom ("science") is greater."
Suit yourself.