Self Analysis

When I choose this issue for my project, I was in no way taking the easy way out. Although this issue is extremely important to me it has been hard to stay unbiased and present all the information that needs to be presented. However if I could go back to the day we choose our issues, I would not have picked any other one. I have truly enjoyed this topic and have learned so much more about the evolution/creation debate; my view of the issue has definitely been broaden.

While looking back at my posts and after my conference I have come to learn that I was leaving something out. In my posts I have seemed to imply that believing in God and believing in the evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive means that two events have no outcomes in common. So I have implied that if one believes in the evolutionary theory then one can not believe in God. However this is not the case. I know this is not the case because my Biology teacher in high school was an evolutionists that believed in God. As I researched most of the sites that I came upon questioned the existence of God. There are some evolutionists that do believe in God, but not many. I found a study that proved this point. The study was conducted where the participants were professional evolutionary scientists (for more detail on the study click here or here). I found part b of the picture above to be quite interesting where approximately 80% said that they do not believe in God. The rest of the twenty percent are divided between a belief in a personal God (theists), belief in God as a deist, or no belief in God but they leave room for mystery. Being a deist means that one does believe in God and that God did play a role in the beginning of life, but He no longer is involved in the world. They do not believe in a personal relationship with God. (Read the blog "Imagine...A Complex Creation" if you are interested in seeing why there is more to God then what deist believe.) So in way I focused on the 80% of evolutionists that do not believe in God. However, I should have included the fact that some evolutionists do believe in God and so I am adding that now.

Through this project I have became even more aware that there are so many people that remain uneducated about the issues of evolution and creation. I had one commenter who said that they believe the universe has always existed and may always exist. There are many sites that disprove his assumption and that show why the universe has a beginning point. The universe does have a beginning and it has not always been as this one commenter assumed rather blindly. (Click here, here, or here for the evidence). In fact, the point that the our universe does have a beginning is agreed upon by both evolutionists and creationists as I stated in one of my first posts. This point proves that there is a need for more education on both of these issues. Before this post I just accepted the fact that only evolution was taught in public schools. But through this project I have seen more and more that both sides need to be taught, so that everyone can make their own opinions about the issue-not just blind opinions. I feel that it is extremely important for people to know why they believe something and it is even more important for them to be able to back it up. I think our schools should accept other theories into the curriculum so students have the choice...we are a free country aren't we?

I have grown in so many other ways as well. Beginning off I thought I could present a lot of the facts of evolution and creation however I have not even began to skim the top of those theories. The more research I did the more complex I found both of the issues to be. If one is talking about Creation, then one needs to talk about the existence of God. If one is talking about the existence of God then one should talk about the validity of the Bible. So both of these issues of Creation and Evolution are intertwined with so many other issues that it is impossible to write everything that needs to be said in such a short blog. I seemed to think before this project that both issues were a whole lot more simple than they actually are. This issue has always been important to me since I learned of evolution in school but I had never taken the time to really research it myself. So this project has helped me grow in my view of creation and evolution. I have truly enjoyed this assignment.

Sites You must Visit

Whether you smoke or not everyone should visit the site, Second Hand Smoke is No Joke. This site shows the effects of second hand smoke and relates the issue to today. Both sides of the issue are presented and it helps one see the prospective of both the smoker and the non-smoker. It helps smokers understand non-smokers point of view and, helps the non-smokers understand the smokers point of view. It does a great job of being fairly unbiased. The site comments on political issues of today that have to do with banning smoking in public places. It presents why smoking should be banned according to non-smokers and why it should not be banned according to smokers. This is a great side to go to, to see the issue completely laid out. It is also great to go to to learn more about both sides. This issue effects all of us even if you do not smoke because of the effects of second hand smoke. I encourage all to read this site so that you can become more knowledgeable in this issue and maybe help solve it.



Another blog worth visiting is the People Shouldn't Kill People, So Neither Should the Government. This blog is devoted to the death penalty and the arguments for why the death penalty should be abolished. It makes many great points including the cost of the death penalty, how different each states standards are (and how different each countries standards are), how bad the death row inmates representations is, and so much more. If you are for the death penalty read this site and consider the arguments that are made and if you are against the death penalty read this site and be encouraged that our country is getting one step closer in abolishing it.

If you are interested in immigration go to Crossing the Border, Crossing the Line? This site shows that everything about illegal immigration is not bad and shows to those that are not apathetic towards illegal immigration how it actually helps our economy. It does a great job in showing the opinions of both sides of the argument and I feel it does a good job in convincing others that there is positive in the negative situation of illegal immigration.

The Implications of the Evolution/Creation Debate

As stated in my theory post, the issue of Evolution verses Creation will never be completely resolved. However, I do think that people will become more knowledgeable of both theories.

As evolutions claim to find more evidence for evolution, creationists are going to combat that evidence with another explanation. As creationists show more proof for the existence of God the Creator, evolutionists will find a way to say that that can not be. So has you can see debates will continue, even as more information and evidence for either side is found. However, as more information and evidences are found, I think that many more people will become aware of what all each side entails.

I think the biggest problem concerning this issue is that many people are very uneducated when it comes to knowing about both theories. The solution of this problem would be to teach both theories in school, stating that they are just theories (not fact). This way each individual will know more about each theory and they will be able to decide on their belief by comparing both theories, and accepting which one they think to be more logical. Many have tried to get creation taught in public schools, but so far it has not been passed. In a recent poll 79% of people thought that creation should be taught in public schools. This is another site that has supreme court cases dealing with this issue and it also proposes how creation can still be taught in public schools legally. One can overview creation in school as long as it is kept in context and is not promoted. Click here to read about how the public schools threw out a Christian worldview for a atheistic one.

So what does the future hold for this issue? The creation/evolution debate will always continue. More people will try to get creation permanently added to the curriculum as other fight for why it should not be taught. People are always going to have different viewpoints but hopefully people will begin to learn about both theories, instead of just one.

Links, Links, and More Links

In this post I will be describing some of the links that I have used in previous posts. Hopefully, if you want to research this issue further you will find these links useful.



I use many sites that focus on the creation theory of the beginning of the Universe. Most of these sites, if not all are biased since it presents opinions of why creation is more logical than evolution. However, these sites show the view of creationists and if one felt compelled, one could go to the evolution sites in my posts and compare the two views. I do try to do this in my post. These creation sources are credible because many are written by authors who are experts in the field of Creation. They might be biased since so much emotion goes into this issue, but they do show what creationists believe. Some are the site are as follows.

http://www.sbea.mtu.edu/users/slstonge/ This is site is extremely biased, but makes the arguments against evolution very simple and easy to understand. It empathizes the complexity of life and how preposterous it is to believe it evolved spontaneously from nothing.

http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm This site takes on the complexity of life in a much more serious way as well as many other arguments for creation. It is more scientific that the site listed previously, but it has the same idea- that life is to complex to have been evolved over time from nothing, along with other arguments. The author was once a evolutionists who believed only in facts he could see, nothing metaphysical. Then he had a lot of questions and decided to research. He presents his findings and says why he changed is mind about evolution.



http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

These sites show reasons for why God does exist. God's existence is a major question that evolutionists ask about creation. They ask, "You say God created the universe, but how do you prove God exists?"Although biased, these sites show why, in the author's opinion, God exists. They sites are reliable however. They are written by authors with a lot of education under their belt and they have reliable sources that back up their statements. What they write may not be agreed upon by all, since it is dealing with the issue of Gods existence, but what they do write is true facts of why people believe God does exists. I use these links and others to make my argument more reliable, for the creation side. I do not know everything there is to know about apologetics and God's existence so these sites fill in my missing knowledge.



I have also used sites to state the facts of evolution. Some of these sites may also be biased, since many of them are stating theories of evolution that have not been proven as fact. However, I want to present both sides of the evolution/creation issue in my blog. If I have both biased evolution and biased creation sites then that helps my site be less biased, although it is about impossible to not be biased at all when talking about this issue. Some of the sites I have used for evolution are: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html, which states Hubble's Law and why the expanding universe is evidence for evolution. It is copyrighted by The Board of Trustees at the University of Illinois, which makes the site creditable, but absolutely true, since some believe this is not evidence for evolution. Another site is http://library.thinkquest.org/26070/data/eng/. This side presents the evolutionary theory and also lists the arguments for and against the evolutionary theory. http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ This site has the complete Origins of Species written by Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species is where the theory of evolution began, so it is very important for the evolutionary side of the issue.

Update: These two sites show that some evolutionists do believe in God. Click here or here. Many evolutionists do not believe in God as the study on these sites show but there still are some.

The Theory- Why is this Issue Unresolvable in Our Society?

Since 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published there has been a controversy between evolution and creation. Since then we have not made much progress; the issue still remains and unfortunately always will. But why can this issue not be solved once and for all? There are two main reasons (at least in my theory of this question) why this gigantic issue can not be solved.

The first reason in that neither one of them can be proved, or at least that is what creationist say about evolution and evolutionist say about creation. The purpose of this blog is to present both sides of the evolution/creation issue, and to hopefully show which one is more logical. The purpose was NOT to prove which one was correct. It is nearly impossible if not impossible to prove one side or the other because both require some bit of faith, although different kinds of faith. For creation, there is the faith that a being of Higher Intelligence exists. There is an extremely long list of explanations that show God exists and the Bible is 100% correct (click here or here to read about some of them). This is called apologetics. Creationist would say that there are proofs for God, but evolutionists would counter that they are not tangible evidences. For evolution one must have faith in spontaneous generation and also believe we evolved from one simple single celled organism gradually over time. Some evolutionists believe there is proof for this like the fossil record, the Urey experiment, and the fact that the universe is expanding outwards. However, creationists find fault in all of these evidences, which I wrote about in another post. So you can see that this is a never ending circle.

The second reason this issue remains unresolved is summed up in this quote. "There is an old saying: There is no point in debating with someone who knows they are right." No matter what proofs and evidences one gives on evolution or creation and no matter how logical they might be, there will always those who will not change their mind. Stubbornness seems to contribute to this issue not being resolved. Many have the mind set that they are right and anyone who believes differently is wrong. This fact is hard to change since those people that have that mind set are not going to change. This issue would be resolved easier if one could present solid evidence that no one could refute. This goes back to my first reason- the evidence that is presented will be refuted my the other side of the argument which ties into my second reason. So basically no matter what evidence is found someone (if not many) will not believe it and therefore the issue can not be resolved.

I have presented both sides and I hope that my presentation shows which one is more logical. However what I think is logical may seem preposterous to someone else. So my blog has not gotten any closer to resolving this issue, but hopefully some have either been encouraged by my blog or maybe some have found creation to be logical then what they used to think.

The Stats. on the Origin of Life

Life is extremely complex and to some life has not always been this complex. The view of evolutionists is that life first spontaneously generated (abiogenesis) from non-life. Then the simple organism that spontaneously generated evolved different types of cells and through a long period of time mutations and natural selection occurred and life became more and more complex. Others however find this extremely hard to believe. Lets take for instance one very tiny fraction of life and examine its complexity....the human eye.

"The eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells."


Charles Darwin even said,
"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

If man can not create an eye then how did it merely form by chance? If not chance then, how did this so extremely complex organ evolve from a simple one-celled organism that spontaneously generated from nothing? "The eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body" and yet to some the eye evolved from essentially nothing. This is just the eye. This just not even begin to touch on the complexity of the rest of our universe. But still some hold that life was not created but it was evolved. Which do you believe?

Here are some statistics to get you to think a little more about the facts of evolution and creation.

"In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.…the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics - i.e. a miracle."

I try to make my arguments as least biased as possible but the truth is I could not find one quote from an evolutionists on this matter. It seem the avoid this issue all together. i wonder why...

There are no staggering statistics on this subject that favor evolution. All I could find were tons of sites and statistics that showed that the complexity of life did not just evolve from a simple one-celled organism. There is just no way. But please if I have overlooked something or you know of a staggering statistic in favor of evolution please let me know because I am still searching....but if not it is up to you to decide which you want to believe.

The Analysis

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"-Dr. Wernher von Braun.

"Observe constantly that all things take place by change, and accustom thyself to consider that the nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change the things which are, and to make new things like them." -Marcus Aurelius Antonius

These two quotes sum up my issue, the controversy between creation and evolution. There are only two sides or two solutions to the question, what is the origin of life? Either something created to universe or it created itself http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm. There is however, a lot that goes into both sides of the issue. So I am just going to focus on the origin of life and present both sides of the argument in a non biased way so the each person that reads can make up their own mind about the issue, rather than being persuaded to one side or the other.

I am going to start defining my issue by the one fact that both creationist and evolutionist agree on. Creationist and evolutionist both agree that the universe has a beginning; it has not been here eternally (click here for more information). That is the only thing that they can agree on and so the debate begins...

If the universe has a beginning then how did it start?

The Creationist's Answer:

The universe and everything in it was created by a being of higher intelligence (i.e. God). Everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Therefore, since the universe has a beginning it also has a cause. God caused the universe, however God does not have a beginning so he does not have a cause. "Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created" http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html.
The universe did not evolve into what it is today through millions of years of evolution but was created in only six days (read the first two chapters of Genesis or click here). Also, life is way to complex and unique for it to of occurred by random chance.

Although it may be hard to prove God's existence through the statement: if everything has a cause then there must be one thing that has always existed, that does not have a cause, that created everything that does have a cause (the universe). This is what makes this issue even more complicated. So I will try to explain why this statement is more logical than evolution. Evolutionists and creationists agree that the universe has a beginning. Therefore it had to begin somehow. Evolutionist believe that a singularity expanded into the universe, but they readily admit that they do not know where the singularity came from. Lets just say that evolutionist are right. The universe was formed through the expansion of a singularity. But there is still the question of where the singularity came from. It had to come from somewhere, since most agree that the universe has a starting point. Does it not make more logical sense to say that there is something that exists that has always existed and that has no need for a cause since it has always existed. This is the only answer. The line of causation would be impossible if this was not true, because then there would be no first cause and there would be no answer for where the singularity came from. It had to come from something, and that something must be eternal or else it too would need something that caused it. This does not prove that "God" exists but does show there is some higher intelligence that must exist (or at least something that has been here forever) since most agree the universe has a starting point (it has not been here eternally). Click here for reasons why God does exist or here because I do not have the space in this analysis to go through it.

God is this eternal something and this is why Creation is more logical since evolutionists have no answer to that question. (All from a creationist's prospective).

The Evolutionist's Answer:

The universe was created from a primeval atom or a "singularity." The singularity expanded and the universe began. Through millions of years (10-20 million years) the universe has evolved from this singularity into what it is today. Everything in our universe evolved from this singularity. There are lots of evidences that suggest evolution is true. One is that many animals have common bone structures and very similar DNA, so they must have evolved from a common ancestor. Also Hubble's Law shows that the universe is still expanded, which supports the theory that the singularity expanded into the universe. However, it is not known at this time where the singularity came from and that might remain a mystery. (All from and evolutionist's prospective).

The Creationist's Response to Evolution:

First or all, evolutionists have no answer for how the singularity appeared. (As stated before). Second of all, just because different species may have the similar structures and DNA does not mean they have a common ancestor. A more logical approach would be that they have a common designer. Thirdly, does the fact that Hubble's law shows that the universe is expanding really mean that that how it all began? Could it not also mean that that is just how the universe was created? Even more so, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the theory of evolution. There is no transitional forms in the fossil record, there is no anatomical, biochemical or genetic evidence that has been proven to support evolution. Also it is highly improbable that the earliest forms of life formed out of non-life.

The Evolutionist's Response to Creation:

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles." - James D. Watson
There is no evidence for the creation theory. None of the creationists points are based on fact.

So what's the point?
I want to present both sides of this argument in the least biased way possible so that those who read can decide for themselves. However, there is another reason that goes along with the first, the political part of the issue. More and more problems dealing with this debate are coming up in the United States school systems. In my opinion I think that both sides of the debate should be presented in schools so that each student can decide for themselves which they believe. I want to point out the fallacies in evolution and show why creation is more logical to show that creation should at least be taught along side evolution since it is more logical (to me). Even if creation is not taught as a truth (which will never happen because of the Separation of Church and State) it should at least be presented with evolution so the students know of both sides of the debate (click here for more information this issue in the school system). I have laid out the basic arguments in this analysis for the origin of life. In further post will focus even more in on each issue in the origin of life debate. I will do my best to prove my point.

The Human

The controversy of the origin of the human species is one of the main controversies found in the Evolution/Creation debate. Evolutionists and Creationist take have extremely different views of this issue and I will be discussing them both here. Did humans "evolve from other life-forms" or was the human "distinctly created?" http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

Evolutions would say that since chimpanzees and humans have similarities between embryos, anatomical similarities, and biochemical similarities they must have a commons ancestor. Furthermore, over 95% of the DNA of a chimpanzees is equal to that of human DNA. http://library.thinkquest.org/26070/data/eng/ So, the human species came into existence by gradual changes from variation and natural selection over long periods of time. By these processes the human race as well as chimpanzees and gorillas have evolved from the same ancestor. Variation is present in all species. Every member of a species varies slightly from the other members- this is variation. Natural selection is the process of the most fit surviving. As the environment changes, those of a species that can adapt to the new environment survive while those who do not adapt die. Gradually the species changes so that it can better survive in the new environment.
http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/overview/Overvw3.html From these processes everything as evolved. If apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, then their common ancestor evolved from some other species, and that species evolved from another species and on and on. From a simple organism evolved highly complex organisms and the first organism spontaneously generated. This is the view of the evolutionists.

Creationists take on an completely different view. Everything did not evolve from the first original organism (blue-green algae) and the human race and chimpanzees do not have a common ancestor. for creationist, every species was created individually by the hand of God. At this point you may be thinking that evolution has stronger facts and evidence, but does it? Let me talk about now the "facts" of evolution can actually be "facts" for creation. Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D wrote an article titled, "Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?" The point is no DNA similarity does not prove a common ancestry at all. Would not another reason for common DNA be that both humans and chimpanzees have a common designer? Also all organisms have common needs and functions, such as obtaining energy and reproducing. Since all organisms have this in common shouldn't their DNA also have something in common? Here is an excerpt from Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D.'s article that I found quite interesting.

"What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross." http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

Therefore being common lends itself more to a common designer than a common ancestor. There are even more arguments that show that the evolutionary theory is not correct. There are missing links between many species and their common ancestors. There are no transitional forms! If changes from one species to another occurred of long periods of time should there not be many fossils showing the small, gradual changes from one species to another? The fact is there is none. The missing links proves to be a huge damper on the evolutionary theory. There is nothing really to support, besides the fact that species evolutionists think have a common ancestor, have similar DNA. But as already stated, similarities in DNA does not necessarily mean a common ancestor but could mean a common designer. With creation there are no missing links because each species was created individually by the Designer of life.

Take both theories and way out which one makes more sense to you and please feel free to comment with your opinions of which you think is true. And if you have a different view from one of these please comment and describe your beliefs. Thanks for reading!

Holes in the Fossil Record

The last post I wrote was packed with information about the two different standpoints of of how the universe began. Since that issue has so much information, I did not have enough room to be very specific. So for this post I am going to be more specific about one issue that is a huge controversy between evolutionist and creationist. It is the fossil record.

You may think that I am jumping around a lot but I really want to present all the major controversies between the evolution and creation so for those that read all my post will know about them and be able to decide for yourself which one you think is true. If I have more time I will go back and write more post about the beginning of the universe since there is so much information to tell about just that one issue. But I want you to see the whole picture, in order to be able to choose which one you believe is true based on many parts of the evolution/creation argument not just one.

Evolutionists believe that the human race has evolved gradually, over a sixty million year time period, into what it is now. The theory is that the highly complex human race has gradually evolved from the tiny single-celled organism, the amoeba. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/protists/amoeba.shtml

For this to be true, there must be tons of transitional fossils that show the change from one organism to the next. There have been hundreds of millions fossil specimens found so there should be at least some transition specimens. But there are none. http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/fossil-record.htm So there is a big hole in the evolutionary theory. If this "macro-evolution" theory were true there should be "tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms." http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/fossil-record.htm So, I find it hard to believe that so many people that believe in evolution over look this quite large missing fact.

Dr. Gary Parker, Ph. D. and former evolutionist said, "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html. The fossil record actual hurts the evolutionary debate, instead of helping it, which is a major misconception that many people believe who do not put time into researching it.

"All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. " http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html This statement tends to lend itself to creation. The fact that there are no transitional specimens known and that the animals appear fully functional with no ancestors adds to the long list that creation is more logical than evolution. Creations says that everything was created by the hand of God over a six day time period. No species evolved into a completely new species over time. God created everything fully functional and the only changes that have occurred since then are due to natural selection. But I will talk about natural selection in another post. If you think about it, how is it possible that our highly complex and detailed human race evolved from a tiny one-celled organism? It is not even statistically possible. Let me give you an excerpt from a website to prove this to you.

"Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week." http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm

If a bacterium can not even put itself back together how can a our so much more involved and complex race evolve from an amoeba? The quote also helps support the claim that creation is the only logical origin of life, from my last post. There is no way that life spontaneously generated then evolved into the complexity life is now. So think about these facts, read the articles if you are so inclined and decide which theory makes more sense to you. Will it be the one with a HUGE gap and missing links (evolution) or one that it much more logical?

In the beginning...

For my first post I am going to start at the beginning, the beginning of everything.

Evolutionist believe the universe came from a singularity. They can not answer the question of where the singularity came from or what exactly it was but evolutionist do have many evidences that support this theory. The theory is that this singularity contained everything that life requires. As time went on it expanded (The Big Bang Theory) and the universe came into existence. It is of course more complicated then I just stated, but that is the basic idea. Evolutionist have many evidences for this theory and a couple of them are as follows:

1. Galaxies seem to be moving away from us. This law was discovered by Edwin Hubble (Hubble's Law) and it shows that the universe was once compacted and it also gives probable cause that the singularity did expand like the theory states and is still expanding. (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/).
2. In 1953, Stanely Miller created an apparatus that stimulated "Earth's primitive, reducing atmosphere" under the supervision of Harold Urey. The apparatus contained ammonia, water vapor, methane, and hydrogen. It was then electrolyzed to represent ultraviolet radiation from the sun. All these elements are what is believed was there before the universe "appeared." After this apparatus had been operating for a week Miller found different types of amino acids and organic chemicals. Miller's experiment shows that organic compounds can form from inorganic substances, which supports the evolution theory. (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html)

All these evidences fit the theory of evolution but just because they support the theory does not mean that the theory is true. There could be many other theories that these same evidences support. Now I am going to present creations side of this argument.

Creationist believe that the universe was skillfully planned and created by a Deity. To creationist the universe did not just appear when something (singularity) decided for some reason to expand but the universe was created for a reason. There are many logical evidence for creation as well but I am not going to list them all here. Instead, I am going to talk about three philosophical points that show creation is more logical.

I would like to tell you of points that W.D. Jeffcoat , M.A. made in his paper titled "The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God." I am just going to point out the highlights but if you want to know more go to http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf to read his paper.

He breaks down creation into logical steps. First, "since casualty exists, there must be a First Cause." Evolutionist admit that they do not know where the "singularity" came from. However, the Creation theory has a more logical approach. Since everything has a cause nothing can just appear (like in the evolution theory) without a cause. So there is a long line of things causing other things. But what caused the first cause? This might be hard to understand but since all things have a cause there must be one thing or being that as always existed and always will exist. A being that needs no cause because it has always been. The cause of everything else leads back to the First Cause. In creation this First Cause is God. God then caused or created the universe. This makes much more sense if you think about than something just appeared out of thin air and from that random appearance evolved our extremely involved and complicated universe (as Evolution states).

Another crucial point he makes is that, "The world obviously exists, and yet cannot explain its own existence; therefore something else must account for it. But, if we are not to develop still another unexplained existence of some kind, this 'something else' must contain within itself the cause of its own existence." We may not be able to explain the eternity of the First Cause's existence, but the first cause can. Since all of us have a cause we should not necessarily understand some being that does not have or need a cause.

The third point I am going to talk about is "the argument from contingency." It is known that many things have an beginning and an ending. Now, this might get confusing but stay with me. Since many things are known to have an beginning or an end, they are capable of existing at one point and not another, they are contingent. They are not necessary because if they were necessary they would not have an beginning or an ending. But there has to be at least one necessary thing or being to cause "contingent beings" because if no necessary being did existed, nothing could exist.

I have laid out points of both sides and hopefully showed to you which one is more logical. Evolution is more fact based and straight forward. Creation is more philosophical since it is dealing with more than the natural world, so the points are more involved. I hope they make since sense and there is a lot more points for both sides that I will discuss in further blogs, so keep reading. Comment my blog if you have any questions or comments.