Evidence for God from Science

First you falsely assume I am not familiar with the critiques. I am. In fact Meyer has often directly addressed the critiques. The GOG is a big one he often addresses. BTW, directing someone to Google is not an answer. That is weaker than milk toast, as well as a faulty appeal to authority.

My apologies but I assumed such because that is the precise reason why Meyer's hypothesis is not supported by evidence. And since you brought it up, I assumed you were unaware of it, else why would you go for it.

And you have to understand, Pakistan is not very good with Christian literature, we have next to nothing, most of what I read, I read from Google and the internet, so saying that was not an attack or questioning your intelligence, simply to me that is the best way to get resource material.

Then why start off begging the question.
When you say "shared genes," you are both question begging and conflating.
When you say "given the evidence," you are equivocating
When you say, "there are many things still to be discovered," you are employing an obvious evolution of the gaps, which is hypocritical as well, considering your objections to GOG. In fact, I'm genuinely concerned that you mention this.

J, shared DNA is not a matter of philosophical debate. It is simply true. 400 years ago, no one had gone into space and saw that the sun was in the center and the earth revolved around it. But the theoretical facts pointed that anyway. Imagine some one objecting the same objections. Theoretical models backed by evidence are not open for philosophical discussion. They predict, it is not equivocating. If the observations turns out to be different than the what the base principle says, then the theory is left or revised accordingly.

I'm genuinely concerned that you mention this. It is apparent to me that you were either completely oblivious that you were invoking a Evolution of the Gaps fallacy here, or you simply have a double standard and flat don't care. If there is a 3rd option I'd be intrigued to hear. If either of the other two are true, then I wonder what is really going on here, and why.

This is not evolution of the gaps, and you are falsely equivocating that GOG = EOG. Within theism a GOG is invalid as an objection, because of obvious reasons. Within science an EOG is invalid as an objection, since that is the basic premise based on observable evidence. All natural sciences work the same way, what we don't know, we may well uncover. I even said, even if we do not uncover somethings, does not mean evolution is false. The same way, you have not seen God and still hold that he exists, your belief is not simply fiction, you have evidence to back it up. Your evidence does not necessarily uncover everything but enough to get you going. In the future you may know more, this is obviously not a GOG.

The problem is you assume to start with, that evolution is simply fiction, a belief that most people adhere to (at most if not all), stories that are imagined to fill in the gaps. I imagine if you would consider, round earthers, as we are, think that believing in a round earth is a belief per se (of course it is more than belief), just because we happen to have a bunch of fellas who believe the earth is flat, does not mean that flat earthers can label round earthers as having just a belief, the same way they do.

The same way just because you have people who believe in ID, T.E, yourself, being YEC, all beliefs; does not necessarily mean that the opposing theories in science are also make belief.

What you do not seem to grasp is that these evolutionary story may well differ in detail from what is being said today but they are true nonetheless in the basic principle, backed up by evidence, DNA to be precise, not just fossils alone. And for that, it is enough evidence to support the model. The best of which is shared genes and DNA, for without shared ancestry, we can not have those genes any other way. The reason this can not be refuted is more than logical tactics, there is no alternate viable model (which I have asked repeatedly for) which explains things which evolution does. But the reason I also imagine there is not other model, is because such a model, even if it fits theoretically (like ID tries to do) would not be supported by evidence, if infact ID holds contrary to evolution.

The reason I implied ID as having a GOG, is because ID fails to accept that it is a philosophical take, not a scientific one. If God is indeed outside of nature, then ID is loaded with GOG. You can accept it as a belief, but God forbid not as science.

Now, if you really think that this (multiple fallacies stacked on one another) is a good starting point, then we might as well

See, what you see as fallacies are the very nature to the system of science. Your use of these terms is invalid here, J.

No, it's not the same. The basic premise of multi-competing hypothesis and the fact that we can examine how complexity (I would say function) occurs, given testable and observable examples, blows that claim out of the water. It's evident the problem is people like you, who wallow in fallacy and refuse to consider anything other than Darwinist starting points. It is absolutely hypocritical to hold ID to some constantly changing standard and ignore the multitude of fallacies that infest the foundations that support your worldview. The fact that you won't deal with it is all the more concerning.

Oh comeon J, stop the patronizing, I have explained all of this above. You may think that evolution is just a fictitious model, made up by godless heathens, loaded with philosophical problems, therefore it must be false but that just says how you perceive science to be, false in my opinion.

Show me a testable example how function occurs.

jlay » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:53 am

Here is your problem, you are taking the atheist definition of evolution and applying to it to T.E, are you okay?
Under the case of T.E, God didn;t saw the outcome, God willed the outcome. In this case evolution is not random at all, it is guided. So if God chooses man, he doesn't chooses it over a canary or a hippo, just because he liked to. T.E carries the full implications of theology, it means that man was in God's mind since forever, and he chose evolution as the mechanism to derive life and therefore come to a time when man comes on the scene and therefore God can appoint him as he so well pleases. more on this below but this just shows why you talking past me, you assume T.E to be God knows what but I am sure its a heresy in your opinion, if you knew T.E you wouldn't even make this objection.

I also wanted to back up and address this.
I am all for having the same term and definitions, as I do not want to argue from ignorance or against a strawman. And I will admit, I am not 100% sure how you are using the term TE. I can only go by the definition I understand. It also seemed to me that you were taking on and off the TE hat when it suited. What I mean here is that TE in many cases seems to concede most if not all the claims of Darwinism.
If you are implementing TE as some sort of prime mover, then I'd be very interested in hearing a more detailed theory, and you can link me to any source.

I appreciate that. I don't think I have anything ground breaking here. I just have concluded from what I have studied and seen that evolution is undeniable. What we can do though, as theists is to see how God could have done it. Since there is room for interpretation, I believe, that makes enough space for T.E to exists within the boundary of accepted theism and not a cult or heresy.

You may not oppose evolution for emotional reasons but a LOT of people do. And it sickens me when people call me out on my faith, just because I happen to believe that God intended evolution and the laws of life. I believe God intended evolution, but I don't believe in evolution, if that makes sense to you.

I happen to disagree with the normal definition of T.E too, that God interfered a lot or guided evolution a lot, though I am certainly open to the possibility, though some of the things I have observed go straight against that.

I do however think that man must be in God's intended plan all along, for that reason the laws of life, (given that God did not actively participate in the evolutionary process) must have some expected results, if not to us then to God, which he being omniscient would know since eternity. In this case, man must be intended in he evolutionary process and once man came to that stage, God interacted with him.

Neo,

What makes humans different from all other animals? If the spiritual nature of man is what makes him different, when did man get the spiritual nature? Did it evolve into man? Did God pick some hominids and give them a spirit? You know, what's the mechanism by which man got a spiritual nature?

Except for God directly choosing mankind, there is nothing different between us and other animals or creation.

I would say that Paul gave a very good answer to your question. It isn't a question of when exactly but I do think it must be when man had at least been to the point where he had developed oral language of some primitive sort. God's interaction with man must have started after that.

Else what you do think God made Adam speak? what language did God speak to man? And was Adam born with complete language embedded in his DNA (this is impossible by the way)? How long did it take Adam to name the animals? You see mankind can only name animals after they have language. Therefore God's interaction with man could have only begun after that.

Our spiritual nature has nothing to do with anything but God, and if God hadn't interacted with us in some way we would not be spiritual at all.

Kurieuo » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:34 am

Neo, you do understand that ID is not necessarily incompatible with Evolution?

Please elaborate. I do however think that in a very broad term, within T.E you can argue that God designed evolution, in that way you can say evolution falls with in design, though I am not sure if thats what you mean. As I see, ID holds itself contrary to evolution.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:34 am

Neo, you do understand that ID is not necessarily incompatible with Evolution?

Please elaborate. I do however think that in a very broad term, within T.E you can argue that God designed evolution, in that way you can say evolution falls with in design, though I am not sure if thats what you mean. As I see, ID holds itself contrary to evolution.

Not at all. Even main ID proponents like Behe accept common descent. Their peeve is with Darwinism being able to accomodate as the sole mechanism.

For "evolution" to be incompatible with ID, one must step into philosophy to argue that the evolutionary process is "not oriented toward any goal."

Can you point me to any "science" which shows this? Really, this question has no bearing upon the science of evolution per se.

But it does have great bearing upon the philosophy of naturalism which tries to get a free ride by smuggling itself in with legitimate science.

Not at all. Even main ID proponents like Behe accept common descent. Their peeve is with Darwinism being able to accomodate as the sole mechanism.

For "evolution" to be incompatible with ID, one must step into philosophy to argue that the evolutionary process is "not oriented toward any goal."

Can you point me to any "science" which shows this? Really, this question has no bearing upon the science of evolution per se.

But it does have great bearing upon the philosophy of naturalism which tries to get a free ride by smuggling itself in with legitimate science.

Ofcourse K this is a philosophical issue, if an atheist gets to define evolutionary process he will see it "regardless of any goal or purpose" and ofcourse with no prime mover or creator God.

I think when they say something like that they go against the typical stance of creationism. They also think that T.E is simply hijacking science into religion, but besides that, I do think that the laws of life, if created by God, could start out life as we see around, without active guidance that is.

neo-x wrote:

Not at all. Even main ID proponents like Behe accept common descent. Their peeve is with Darwinism being able to accomodate as the sole mechanism.

For "evolution" to be incompatible with ID, one must step into philosophy to argue that the evolutionary process is "not oriented toward any goal."

Can you point me to any "science" which shows this? Really, this question has no bearing upon the science of evolution per se.

But it does have great bearing upon the philosophy of naturalism which tries to get a free ride by smuggling itself in with legitimate science.

Ofcourse K this is a philosophical issue, if an atheist gets to define evolutionary process he will see it "regardless of any goal or purpose" and ofcourse with no prime mover or creator God.

I think when they say something like that they go against the typical stance of creationism. They also think that T.E is simply hijacking science into religion, but besides that, I do think that the laws of life, if created by God, could start out life as we see around, without active guidance that is.

Here's the thrust, and it perhaps it even comes down to what the author of Silvertusk's book was trying to communicate (I haven't read it so...)

If someone who believes in God should define "Evolution" as "Theistic Evolution" (obviously philosophically favouring Theism), then an Atheist should define "Evolution" as "Atheistic Evolution" (obviously philosophically favouring pure Naturalism).

I don't really expect this. Yet, this says something. Evolution as a science is neutral. Yet, because "Atheist" is hidden from view, Philosophical Naturalism can more easily cloak itself as "science" when true science has no flavour.

So, like an Atheist believes TE is hijacking science into religion, the AE (Atheist Evolutionist) is unaware that he himself is hijacking science into his own "religion" aka philosophy.

Perhaps in actuality there is no hijacking going on at all, and each are just interpreting the science as they see it into their own respective philosophical beliefs?

If someone who believes in God should define "Evolution" as "Theistic Evolution" (obviously philosophically favouring Theism), then an Atheist should define "Evolution" as "Atheistic Evolution" (obviously philosophically favouring pure Naturalism).

I don't really expect this. Yet, this says something. Evolution as a science is neutral. Yet, because "Atheist" is hidden from view, Philosophical Naturalism can more easily cloak itself as "science" when true science has no flavour.

Evolution as a science is neutral, the problem is , God is outside the confines of nature and therefore untestable to scientific discovery.

So, like an Atheist believes TE is hijacking science into religion, the AE (Atheist Evolutionist) is unaware that he himself is hijacking science into his own "religion" aka philosophy.

I think science is unable to comment on anything which exists beyond the natural or the physical. I think it is this lack of observation beyond the natural which really kind of gives the atheist some common ground, and most atheists use it to hit theism.

Perhaps in actuality there is no hijacking going on at all, and each are just interpreting the science as they see it into their own respective philosophical beliefs?

I would concur. One starts with his philosophical position, atheism or theism and shapes his view. If you ask science alone, then it is not a question of evidence or anything else, except that science can only have one answer, no comments.

I also believe that many Christians, despise evolution not for its own sake but because of the atheist agenda that is often promoted by loud atheists. And they negate both because they see the two totally incompatible with their belief. And that is why I would like to distinguish the thought. Especially T.E, since it may well be perceived as atheism cloaked as theism, which it isn't at all.

No Paul, man was God's final creation. Specifically Eve. God brought the creatures He had already made, before Adam, so Adam could name them.

Look at what is said in Genesis 2:

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him

It states that AFTER God created Man and saw that it was not good for man to be alone, God created "out of the ground" every beast of the field, every bird of the sky.
And did so for Adam to have a helper.

So...

PaulSacramento wrote:

No Paul, man was God's final creation. Specifically Eve. God brought the creatures He had already made, before Adam, so Adam could name them.

Look at what is said in Genesis 2:

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him

It states that AFTER God created Man and saw that it was not good for man to be alone, God created "out of the ground" every beast of the field, every bird of the sky.
And did so for Adam to have a helper.

So...

Paul, a better translation would be: 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky...

Had formed. Meaning God formed the beasts sometime in the past, and brought them before Adam to name.

It's similar to Genesis 1:16-19

16 God had made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

Some YECs think the text says the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. What the text says is that God HAD made the sun and the moon sometime in the past, and that they were now visible from the earth's surface, on the fourth day.

RickD wrote: Paul, a better translation would be: 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky...

Had formed. Meaning God formed the beasts sometime in the past, and brought them before Adam to name.

It's similar to Genesis 1:16-19

16 God had made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

Some YECs think the text says the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. What the text says is that God HAD made the sun and the moon sometime in the past, and that they were now visible from the earth's surface, on the fourth day.

Well....I don't wanna get into the debate of "better translations", the interlinears I have state that:
And the LORD God
said, [It is] not good that the
man should be alone; I will
make him an help meet for
him.
And out of the ground
the LORD God formed
every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and
brought [them] unto Adam
to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living
creature, that [was] the
name thereof.

There is no "had", only "yatzer/ u itzer" which means "(he is) Forming" and can be translated as the act of forming.
The issue of WHEN is really about what is written before that BUT I see how it can be read that, when God saw that Adam was alone, he brought to him the animals that he had formed (already).
The thing is, if we did not have Genesis 1, would we take these verse to mean that or would we take them to mean what is the more natural reading?
I argue that we would take it to mean that God formed creatures AFTER Adam.
But How do we address the contridiction in Genesis 1 then?
Most scholars, as I mentioned, say that what we have is two different stories and, IMO, the are correct.
We have the story of universal and earthly creation AND a special story of the specific creation of Eden and Special Man and Woman.

neo-x wrote:
J, shared DNA is not a matter of philosophical debate. It is simply true. 400 years ago, no one had gone into space and saw that the sun was in the center and the earth revolved around it. But the theoretical facts pointed that anyway. Imagine some one objecting the same objections. Theoretical models backed by evidence are not open for philosophical discussion. They predict, it is not equivocating. If the observations turns out to be different than the what the base principle says, then the theory is left or revised accordingly.

You are misundetanding my point. It is a matter of fact that all biological life is made up of DNA. But, when you say that all life "shares" you are begging the question. The fact that you don't see this isn't surprising. You are convinced that your lens and starting point are correct. The theoretical model, in this case, is founded on presuming its conclusion in the proposition. Textbook question begging. A faulty premise is reason to question any conclusions that arrise.

This is not evolution of the gaps, and you are falsely equivocating that GOG = EOG. Within theism a GOG is invalid as an objection, because of obvious reasons. Within science an EOG is invalid as an objection, since that is the basic premise based on observable evidence. All natural sciences work the same way, what we don't know, we may well uncover. I even said, even if we do not uncover somethings, does not mean evolution is false. The same way, you have not seen God and still hold that he exists, your belief is not simply fiction, you have evidence to back it up. Your evidence does not necessarily uncover everything but enough to get you going. In the future you may know more, this is obviously not a GOG.

Accoring to who, you? Prove that statement scientifically. Saying that science will simply fill in the unknown is a gap argument plain and simple. It's also an argument from ignorance. In other words you have a belief (philosophical) about how man came to be. You are smuggling in science and treating it as something it is not. You are first begging the question by presuming your beliefs to be true, and then making a faulty appeal that science will fill it all in one day. As I said that is starting with one fallacy, and then adding on another in an attempt to cover the first. Not saying you are doing this intentionally. It is just so common that I think people think it's acceptable logic. It isn't.

The problem is you assume to start with, that evolution is simply fiction, a belief that most people adhere to (at most if not all), stories that are imagined to fill in the gaps. I imagine if you would consider, round earthers, as we are, think that believing in a round earth is a belief per se (of course it is more than belief), just because we happen to have a bunch of fellas who believe the earth is flat, does not mean that flat earthers can label round earthers as having just a belief, the same way they do.

Strawman. There are problems but hopefully I can clarify. Your comparison btw is weak. I see evolution as change. It is an absolute fact that many within the scientific community have and do equivocate evolution (change) to Evolution (Darwinism.) Example: "We see evolution (change such as NS) happening all the time, therefore Evolution (Darwinism) is true." To deny that means you are either ignorant of the error or just don't care. Admittedly, I have a different starting point. I also see the how naturalism (a Philosophical world view) is veiling itself in the robes of science. You should be much more quick to point out these philosophical conflicts within the scientific community. The big difference is creationsist and ID proponents are up front with their philosophical leanings. Of course this fact is used against them just as you are doing.
But, it is interesting that some of the arguments I have against Evolution are now coming from a few within the science community who do not have Theism as their starting point.

The best of which is shared genes and DNA, for without shared ancestry, we can not have those genes any other way.

Again, prove that scientifically. You can't. That is classic argument from ignorance. Not to mention prejudical. You are again presuming that the common building blocks of life (DNA) are evidence that all are from shared ancenstry. Classic question begging. Your conclusion is presumed in your premise.

The reason I implied ID as having a GOG, is because ID fails to accept that it is a philosophical take, not a scientific one. If God is indeed outside of nature, then ID is loaded with GOG. You can accept it as a belief, but God forbid not as science.

You don't have to believe in God to follow ID anymore than you have to be an atheist to study and understand Evolution theory. K has already pointed out the philosophical double standard regarding naturalism here. But even so, I think you've totally misrepresented the argument ID is putting forth.

See, what you see as fallacies are the very nature to the system of science. Your use of these terms is invalid here, J.

Well isn't that convenient. Only tells me that you and others like you cannot be reasoned with.

Oh comeon J, stop the patronizing, I have explained all of this above. You may think that evolution is just a fictitious model, made up by godless heathens, loaded with philosophical problems, therefore it must be false but that just says how you perceive science to be, false in my opinion.

No, you have explained anything. You've made bald assertions, and referred me to Google. You've yet to address anything as presented in the multi-competing hyposthesis. (Which is the exact same model Darwin used to introduce his theory, btw.) You are simply taking the critiques of others as Gospel.

Show me a testable example how function occurs.

Grab a pair of scissors. Now, make a rational conclusion on how their function came to be. I'm sure some egg head could actually put that in a very detailed presentation, but that is really how simple it is. In fact I'd say the simplicity is beneath you. Take a camera lens and do the same. Function is from design. Design infers a designer. Try to argue that a camera lens happened by random processes. And perhaps since it has glass and metal it shares an ancestor with a microwave. Of course we have the benefit of observing the whole process start to finish, but that is beside the fact. It is absurd to propose such, but the eye is arguably a camera like no other with very specific functions. The Evolution community excludes anything other than their naturalistic starting points. It is forced to not even address function, but to simply see function as an accident of nature. Do you think that this is rational?

God--The Evidence, by Patrick Glynn (a former atheist) is another good read, showing the need for an intelligent designer.

Hello, I just spent a long time reading all the arguments in this post. I couldn't hope to address all of them and I am a novice to all this scriptural stuff but after accepting the Lord Jesus as my Saviour I had to examine my 40 years of belief as an Atheist who just accepted Darwinism as the most rational answer for how we got to be where we are today. I no longer blindly accept Darwinism but I am still having trouble reconciling long held beliefs with what the Bible tells me. I won't try to lay out a cogent argument just a list of points about where I am at:

1. If I believe that the Bible is the true word of God then I can not pick and choose which bits I want to believe. I have to take it as a whole.
2. There is controversy about how The Creation in Genesis is interpreted and I do not speak ancient Hebrew, therefore I have to accept an interpretation OR be guided by faith - I choose faith.
3. If I believe in a God who can offer me eternal life and salvation through belief in Jesus Christ then I have to believe that he is SO powerful that he can actually deliver on that eternal life - that kind of power is mindblowing!
4. A God who has power over life and death and creation can do anything He wants, whether it makes sense to me or not (even make parasitic wasps!) I can only humble myself before Him because I could never conceive of HOW he does things anymore than an amoeba can conceive of human flight to the moon, and yet most of us believe we went there.
5. My salvation probably does not depend on believing in a literal 6 day creation, God has shown himself to be just and fair so anything that really mattered that much would have been given more emphasis (ok, I know beginning his book with it is pretty emphatic but I mean in the NT)
6. I am finding evolutionary theory has many gaps in it and I firmly believe that no "missing link" between man and apes will be found.
7. Adam was a being created by God probably as the first man from whom we all descended, whether it was exactly as Genesis describes or not. However, if God could create an entire universe from nothing then it's not so hard to believe he created a person (the dust may have been literal dust or a way of describing the raw materials - I have no way of ever knowing).
8. God may well have chosen to give a simplistic explanation for The Creation because giving a detailed account of HOW he went about designing and creating everything would have made Genesis even longer (imagine all the generations of a gnat!).
9. Free will is the best explanation I have for why Adam was created and placed in Eden, God knew his design came with a conundrum, that is in order to come freely to Him we must be able to make choices even if those choices have bad consequences. Even so, Adam and Eve were given the chance and told the consequences. The rest, as they say, is history. Since then humanity has struggled with with death and disease.
10. God is not a puppet master. He may perform miracles and intervene when he see fit but I see no reason to think He directs every moment of every living thing on this planet, He has set up natural laws, systems and organisms that can adapt, go extinct, be influenced by humans or kill humans.
11. Physical death is not the worst thing that can happen to me. Pain is awful but temporary in the scheme of things such as eternal life. Parasitic wasps want to reproduce as much as the creatures they lay eggs in but what an ingenious way of ensuring their offspring have fresh food to eat when they hatch! I don't see that as "horrible", I don't think "nature" is moral in the same sense that humans are - that's part of what makes us human (as well our ability to feel compassion for creatures that appear to die horribly).
12. Many of the arguments of OEC, YEC, ID, TE etc seem to be about time periods and yet I have no problem imagining that God can warp time, possibly for God everything happens at once and time is just designed to help us humans make sense of things, possibly he can click his fingers and do what our human brains belove would take billions of years. I really don't know and I think it is pointless to try and prove the unprovable. It all comes down to faith in the end.

hmm well that was my random rambling. In the end I just ask God to reveal to me what I need to know. And that is a complete turn around from a former Darwinist and Atheist who thought religion was all just a fairy story to help us deal our mortality, I no longer care if the "new" atheists such as Dawkins say that a Creator iss illogical or superstitious nonsense that glosses over the gaps in our understanding.

God bless
Caz

CazPerth wrote:hmm well that was my random rambling. In the end I just ask God to reveal to me what I need to know. And that is a complete turn around from a former Darwinist and Atheist who thought religion was all just a fairy story to help us deal our mortality, I no longer care if the "new" atheists such as Dawkins say that a Creator iss illogical or superstitious nonsense that glosses over the gaps in our understanding.

God bless
Caz

That was an excellent post. If you can write this well when you are just rambling I would like to see what you can write when you put an effort into it.

The reason there is so much controversy about interpreting Genesis 1 is that we are constantly being told that evolution has been scientifically proven. Even some Christians believe this and think they must find a way to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution. The fact is there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible's account. Here are two sites where you can learn about some of this evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/