"What we see is that the evidence from astronomy leads to the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and the biblical accounts of Genesis are the same."

"For the astronomer who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries saying, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." -Dr. Robert Jastrow (outspoken agnostic astronomer)

NOTE: This guy is first and foremost a scientist and a professed agnostic.

--LS

No, you're totally incorrect.  You have a screwed-up idea of the scientific method and an unrealistic, monolithic view of the scientific community.



Nice try at obfuscation, but "creationism" as a movement has a specific meaning.  It isn't "God was behind it all," either...it's "God created all species as they are, and evolution played only a very minor role in the development of life."  Now, there are some creationists that try to push ID theory, and I would have no problem with that IF it was a real theory, but unfortunately it is not.  At this stage, it is just a hypothesis.



What do you mean by "recent?"  If you mean, the last two centuries, well sure...but if you mean recent as COMPARED to the origin of the theory of evolution, then no.  Evolution was accepted by the majority of Christians up till around the middle of the 20th Century.



Yes, many scientists and those who support scientific research ARE worried...because Creationists, while they have yet to slip their lies and distortions into school textbooks, HAVE managed to browbeat and intimidate various schoolboards into watering down the science in those textbooks.  As a result, our kids are being dumbed down and cannot compete scientifically with other nations.  It is quite worrisome.



No, Eric, that's a lie.  Darwinian theory has NOTHING to do with the creation of the universe or the formation of the Earth.  It also has nothing to do with the creation of life.  It deals SOLELY with the development of life via mutation and adaptation.



That's a religious issue outside the bounds of science.  Science makes no statement about WHY the universe came to be or any purpose behind it...it only DESCRIBES HOW it happened.  Now, some scientists have personal philosophical beliefs that they may espouse in popularized books, but those are totally SEPARATE from the research that has been done.



Good God, hyperbole thy name is Eric.



He could, of course...but it would make Him a liar, a deceiver, who designed the Earth to fool humans into thinking it was old.  Do you want to worship a liar?
No?
Then you better hope I'm right and you're wrong.

And note this guy is talking about ASTRONOMY, not biology.  Some cosmologists indeed believe the universe was created.  So do a lot of evolutionary biologists.  But they all still accept that even so, life evolved.  So you should you.

Both.

I follow the Intelligent Design Theory.

Jeez so much hostility on this thread! And all of this during the holiday season! RikWriter are you disagreeing with Eric just to get your post count up [:D]

Hehe, no, but really I have tried to be frank without being hostile.

Then you obviously haven't given the issue such an in depth study.  Evolution is a fact.  It's simply the way things happened.  You can either fit it into your worldview or continue to live in self-deception.

[:O]

was there a first cause?  of course.

were any of us there to see it?  of course not.

if creation took 7 days or a trillion years, does this make god any less magnificent?

no.

[>:/]

The poll results certainly renew my "faith" in the members of this board. Let common sense prevail, and not antiquated mythology.

Bingo.

Why is this so hard for the religious fundamentalists to accept? Is the bible merely a history book full of facts?  Or is it more of an instruction manual on how to live life?  I think it's more of the latter.  

Why is it wrong to suggest, from a creation standpoint, that God created everything, and planned that evolution would carry out that plan?  Seems simple enough to reconcile to me.  Those that are ever rigid in their adherence to principles that are CLEARLY disputable show that man is indeed supremely fallible, and that God alone has the plan--man simply is unable to fully understand it; and never will be able to do so.  Stop trying.  

It's ok to learn, from a scientific standpoint, about the universe in which we live (we wouldn't have fire if we had not) but we won't ever know everything.    

The fleas telling the dog which way to go...again. [:(]


Evolution is a lie...born of lies and will always be perpetuated by the "intelligent" science community. There is not enough "evidence" to ever prove evolution...it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

But...rest assured, one day the debate will be ended forever and ignorance will be no excuse. The "evidence" has been here for a couple of thousand years.

Truth will always stand the test of time. 2 thousand years and counting for creation.

You know those little fish things some people have stuck on their cars to let people know they're Christians?  I saw one the other day that had "Darwin" written inside the fish instead of "Christ", and the fish had feet.

I thought that was clever.  

Ummm...sorry, no.  You're wrong on all counts.
First off, creation stories are MUCH older than 2000 years.  The Biblical story of creation is at least 4000 years old, and others predate it.
Second, there is no evidence, per se of creation in general---that is, there is nothing that proves that life had to have been created---nor is there any evidence for the specific creation story of Genesis being literally true.  In fact, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that it is not.  If it is true, it is true as allegory, or perhaps as a morality lesson told to Bronze Age nomads who wouldn't have known a genome if it bit them in the ass.
Third, if there is a God and an afterlife, I doubt He will care one wit if those who followed Him did so while accepting the fact of evolution or believing the Santa-Claus tale that all life popped into existence 6000 years ago as-is.
And finally, evolution is a fact, whether it suits your outlook or not. Of course, unless you or your children are biological scientists, disbelieving the fact of evolution will probably have no effect on your everyday life.  But it's always good to accept reality...it's good practice, if nothing else.

It was masturbation (master-being-creation.

I said creation because I'm a Christian.  You'd think that wouldn't determine it, except if you're Christian then you believe Jesus is the perfect son of God, infallable in every way.  Well, Jesus spoke of Adam's original sin.  In order for original sin to work, it had to play out like God said in the Bible, and like Jesus affirmed in the NT.

The universe is a vacuum and so is this thread. Every bit of life has been sucked out of this subject matter more times than I can count.

HAH!  Everyone is wrong!  Because, it's neither!

You are all just figments of MY IMAGINATION!

Hence, SO IS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!

PROVE ME WRONG!

Bil(with a god complex)ster

neither... aliens screwed monkeys.....and we have a third theory in the debate.

This is really simple.  HUMANS EVOLVED. MICHAEL JACKSON WAS CREATED!

There, done.

This topic was ok the first million times but now it just makes a good home for trolls[rolleyes]

My vast preponderance of evidence is enough for me. Again...my salvation plan was made into a covenant for me, 2 thousand years ago with the Son of God. Jesus made his case for creation...I believe [b]his[/b] word over any other man that has walked the earth. (see Darwin)

If I believe in Jesus...I believe his word. If I believe his word...I believe in creation. Simple. I do.

Foolish is the [b]man[/b] who says in his heart, there is no God.

More foolish is the [b]man[/b] who follows him..."that would be the evolutionist."

To try and believe in both evolute and creation..is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you're not. You cannot be both.

LIke I said...there is no way, one little atom "made" all the earth and the living things in it. No way. Atoms do not "create" anything from themselves. They are created.

An atom does [b]NOT[/b] have the ability to reproduce anything which it does not have in it's structure. Someone had to "design" the diferent atoms and their structures...they did not do it themselves. Or they would still be doing "it". We are going from a law of order, to a law of disorder in our Universe...the Universe is not "creating" anything..it is burning out, it is getting older. Our bodies are not "evolving" into a higher life form. Our planet is getting older not younger and is not getting more "evolved".

Scientist figure out that we came from an Ape...but, cannot tell us definitively where the Ape came from. The hydrogen theory has more holes in it than a A-10 gunnery range.

My last word is...what if we "creationist" are right? Then someone will be going to heaven or hell.

If evolutionist are right...we go nowhere.

My point...if there is a heaven, I definitely want to be there. If the only recquirement is accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, believe in your heart he was raised from the dead. Simple. I do.

[b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]

1) That's definitely a distinct possibility... why does everyone constantly treat these two theories as if they are entirely incompatible?

2) image?? that's not an alternative universe from which my doppelganger seeks to escape and destroy me so he can take my guns??

The mistake you are making is that you are coming from a position that you ABSOLUTELY MUST PRECISELY KNOW the origins of man and the universe.  Evolution is not without its flaws, but it is the most plausable theory thus far.  I'm quite satisfied with the theory even though more evidence is required to confirm it.

Nobody knows the mechanisim of gravity.  It can be measured, and experienced, but why it exists is still not known.  What causes mass to attract other mass?  Even though nobody knows why it occurs, an anvil falling off a building will still turn you into a bloody pancake.

[b]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
Creationism.

If an irrefutable law of physics is that everything tends towards chaos, and evolution says that we evolved into our current form after many random changes, how did we evolve up, when everything is trying to break down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Sorry, you're wrong.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT say that everything tends toward chaos. It says that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, higher energy states tend toward equilibrium with lower energy states.
That means, for instance, that hot things get colder.
But the Earth is NOT a closed system, it is bombarded by ice from comets and meteors, possibly also biological material from same, sunlight, cosmic radiation, etc...
Life works against entropy on a LOCAL level by "borrowing" energy from outside our local system.

[/b]

I agree--the Earth is not a closed system.  Neither is the solar system.  Neither is the galaxy.  BUT--the universe is a closed system, in spite of being infinitely large.  

Two other points.  If the universe "just happened," then where did the stuff of the universe come from?  I, and other Christians, say it came from the mind and hand of God.  Scientists have no good theory that adequately explains the creation of the stuff of the universe, nor how it was organized from basic components into the complexity of today.

Which brings me to my second point--Evolutionists say that, in spite of the nature of things to decompose and mutate into lesser capable forms (see compost piles, birth defects, and my children's rooms), we somehow grew UP into the forms we had--i.e., from a lower life-form (fish) into higher forms (ape, then man), through random chance.  That's like saying a tornado can rip through a junkyard and assemble a car, with air in the tires and gas in the tank, purely on random chance.  

A common quote of the intelligent design folks--a watch implies a watchmaker; it is not a natural form, and therefore someone or something had to create it.  In the same way, the variety and complexity of life around us, and the perfectly adapted life forms we see (humans, fish, bugs, etc) imply something other than random chance tailored them to their environment.

Another way to look at it--the platypus is a perfect argument for creation--nature would have NEVER stuck all those spare parts together and created something that works!


Edited to fix bold print

Creation.

Evolution is BS. You can't get something from nothing. Cup your hands in front of your face and walk up to a friend. When he asks you what you're looking at, tell him, absolutely nothing.

Yet you have none that would stand up anywhere but your own mind.



Jesus wasn't trying to teach a science lesson.



No, that's not the choice. You can believe in the Bible and accept the idea that it is not trying to be a science book.



Again, you're simply setting up a straw man and muddying the waters.  Evolution DOES NOT EQUAL atheism.  When will you get that idea through your skull?



No, you're simply wrong.  



How the universe came about is not a question of evolution, it's cosmology.  Again you cloud the issue...because you have no evidence and no argument.



No, you're deliberately being dense (at least I hope it's deliberate).  You do not have to be a Creationist to be a Christian.  In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of Christians are not Creationists.

So what?  All that means is that the entropy bill will have to be paid AT SOME POINT IN TIME.  



That is not a point and it is outside the parameters of this discussion.
1)Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of the universe.  That is cosmology.
2)Scientists have several theories of the origin of matter, but from whence the initial cosmic egg that began our universe there is no clear idea.  Say it is God if you want...you might be right.  But that has NOTHING to do with the present discussion.
3)Scientists most certainly DO have a clear idea of how the universe went from the initial stages of hot gasses to today.  There are some things that aren't clear, such as the amount of matter and its nature, but the basics are pretty clear.



No, of course it's not.  Compost piles and children's rooms aren't alive.  And birth defects are negative genetic changes, but not all genetic changes are negative.  Most are neutral...you never notice them.  You're making the typical mistake of trying to argue a scientific issue from selective, anecdotal evidence that doesn't even support your position.



Just the opposite actually.  The platypus is an example of how evolution never throws anything away.

Which, of course, isn't what evolution is about.  Read a book sometime.

The vast majority of Christians do not believe in creation??? That has to be the dumbest thing you've said today. You are dead wrong on that one. How do I know? Trust me...I will find and cite sources, unlike you.

It's amusing to me...to hear non-christians actually comment on what [b]we[/b] believe. You guys are soooo much smarter than I thought. Not only do you have the answers to the beginning of man...you can read their minds also. Amazing.

There is no room for the two theories to dwell. None.

Let me repeat what others have included in their comments. The Bible is the infallible word of God. If creation is false, then the whole Bible is false. But, I believe as [b]millions[/b] of other christians around the world believe, God's word is truth. Period.

Density has nothing to do with my belief system. I don't jump off a roof to prove there is gravity...I believe in the physics of what goes up, must come down. Simple. Isaac Newton did not invent gravity he only found it and labeled it. I have "faith" in the fact that gravity exist. The same applies with God. I could deny that gravity does not exist, but gravity will still exist. I could deny that God exist, but that does not mean he does'nt exist.

Scientist are trying to "invent" a reason for us being here. They have outsmarted themselves. They have no proof. Thus, [b]you[/b] have no evidence of their "theories".

One jawbone from a neandrethal man, "turns out to be pig bone later", does not prove evolution. Then trying to prove that one hydrogen atom "created" the whole Universe, is the biggest lie ever perputrated. And never proven. Ever.

If you could loosen your "density" level and actually read the bible. You can find plenty of physical and historical evidence to back up the events and places it portrays. From the flood to Jesus walking the earth...there is evidence.

But, nooooo, christians are just too stupid to realize the brilliance of acedemia, discovering the beginning of time and matter. Bull crap. They are the ones who have muddied the waters. With NO proof. None.

You must believe what one man says in order to believe the theory of evolution.

You must believe in one man to believe in God.

I'll take Jesus over what anything man says. Simple.

The bible does not have to be a science book to be true. Not sure where you got that from. If you think science actually backs up what evolutionist theorize...wrong again.

I am not the fool here.

I will provide further sourcing for you later...this should keep you busy for a while.

Here's a good source to refute Darwinism:
[url]http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/[/url]

And this is not about science..it's about a religion.

The term "evolutionist" is used extensively throughout the following chapters. In other parts of this book,  we will discuss the ideas of Christians who try to marry the concepts of evolution and the Bible. However,  because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians,  I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution--in the sense of time,  chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.  

In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Sceptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups),  the entire 30 pages of The Southern Sceptic,  Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis,  this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense,  or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God."  These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religious group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God,  nor can it ever be. They believe,  no matter what the evidence,  that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.  

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy,  science or history. The issue,  therefore,  is not science versus religion,  but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).  

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Diobzhansky (The American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, Number 3, March 1973, page 129) quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts,  a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."  To the Christian,  of course,  this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in #Joh 8:12  "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness,  but shall have the light of life."  In #Isa 2:5 we are exhorted to  "walk in the light of the Lord."  In #Isa 2:22 we read,  "Cease ye from man...."  

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science,  of course,  involves observation,  using one or more of our five senses (taste,  sight,  smell, hearing,  touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally,  one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago,  nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientist was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.  

All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils,  the living animals and plants,  the world,  the universe--in fact,  everything,  exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there,  but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is,  fossils,  animals and plants,  etc.) originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: "...cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith."  Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!  

source: "The Lie: Evolution" author Kenneth Ham

Evolution.

If you believe in a man that lives in the sky... you might wanna stay up late and watch for the Great Pumpkin.

[rolleyes]

Rikwriter,
More "science" for you to judge.

[url]http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm#life[/url]

Enjoy the read...it's filled with truth.

[:)]
A bit of the ol' "debates about evolutionary theory are like arguments over competing theories about gravity; we know that objects keep right on falling while we debate the cause."

No, the vast majority of Christians accept that the God they believe in brought about the development of the life that now exists via the method of evolution.  Surveys have been done and it's a fact.  (Here's a hint...more Christians live outside the US than in it, and most of them are Catholics...and the Pope has said he accepts the reality of evolution).




Well, given that I used to be a Christian for twenty years and am still close with my family, who are all Christians, I think I have a pretty good idea.



Only in your opinion, not in reality.  Your views have a very tenuous connection to reality.



And you can deny that evolution occurs, but that won't change the fact that it does and it has.



You know who perpetrated that hoax?  A clergyman.  Know who uncovered it?  A scientist.



I've studied the Bible for years...I attended adult Sunday school classes from age 6.  My father was the director of a Bible school.  I had read the thing from cover to cover ten times before I was 12.  My father writes books on Biblical exegesis.



You can continue to deny reality, but it won't change the reality.

No thanks, I've read all that ICR bullshit years ago.  It's filled with lies, distortions and half-truths and the people who write it admit that they are not interested in any evidence that might disprove their beliefs.

If we weren't created, what did we evolve from?  If we evolved from monkeys, where did the monkeys come from?  Where did the universe come from?  

1)We evolved from anthropoid hominids.  They evolved from other species, which...etc...
2)Monkeys evolved from other creatures.  That's actually a damned stupid question, if you think about it.
3)Who knows?  If you read the thread and paid attention you would know the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.

It may sound wishy-washy, but I think it was a little bit of both. God created the universe, but I don't believe the Judeo/Christian/Islamic creation story is to be taken literally. I also believe evolution takes place every day. Just look at dog development in the past 200 years.

I'm sorry you don't like being questioned and think my questions are "damned stupid" but I'm just curious.  No need to get your panties in a wad here.  

Ok, we evolved from anthropoid homonids.  These evolved from....?  Just take me back to the very beginning and save some steps.  What was the very beginning for evolution?  

And the Universe thing. Lets just say it doesn't have anything to do with evolution.  But, where did it start? Did it evolve from something or was it created?

Ya'll don’t watch much History channel do you?
Well explain it to me RikWriter? While I go to ask.com.

SSD

I love being questioned and don't wear panties, but you obviously didn't bother to think before you asked the question.



Whatever the first life was.  Don't know for sure...fossils only go back so far.  Maybe the first life was deposited there by God, maybe by a comet, maybe whatever...evolution doesn't deal with how life began. Just how it developed.



No one knows.  It may be impossible to know...since anything outside the universe is by definition unknowable.

Do a search on the topic. It's been explained before.

So you really don't know.  Thanks for answering my questions and reaffirming my beliefs in evolutionists.

I'm dying to ask this one...

Where did God come from?

And reaffirming your inability to read for comprehension, apparently.  If you could, you would have seen that I had already answered that question before.  But you didn't really care to debate, you simply wanted to say something cute that you believed, mistakenly, would give you the appearance of wit.

Here are some Frequently Asked but NEVER Answered Questions for Creationists:

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?


1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)


2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)


3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)
4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)


4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?


5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?
5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

7. Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.


7a. Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?
8. Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.


9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.
9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.

9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".


10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

11. Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

12. Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?