Your idea behing the way Creationism/EVolutionism proves/disproves is wrong, imho. Darwin believed that there was “more” than the bible. He studied, analyzed, and he proposed a theory. Not just “a theory”. A theory with proofs, related connections, scientific data.
His intention was not to disprove creationism, but to use his mind to find something more. And he proposed theories, ideas, connections and proofs to his theory.
Instead Creationists wants to disprove Evoltuion because “it’s not pertinent to the bible”.

With respect to your black/white analogy in science…are you sure you have studied biology? Take the Atom theory: how many different models of the atom we changed? The Rutherford, the Bohr, the Cloud, Thomson. Did we “stick” to one model? No, we found new data and we changed.
Science has NEVER been black/white. Law of gravity is black/white HERE, in this world, but in relativistic theory is not valid.
In programming science we changed structured, object oriented, extreme programming, formal and informal languages.

No one EVER said that evolution theory is closed, finished, complete and SURE. Where did you find this? Give some references. There are meny new theories that are trying to explain new unclear parts.
But simply put is generally admitted to be true because the proofs in favor are overwhelming against the “proofs” that does not fit. The fact that there are “unclear” or “uncertain” parts, the fact that is not 100% sure, is EXACTLY HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

I read all the link you gave me about the fossil records. Ham is SO logorrhoic. Now do the same and read here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
and many more related articles on that site.
As you can see everything AiG says it’s EASILY pulverized (it’s simply false, unscientific or bad logic)

But WAIT.

Now compares not the content (because it may be questionable, it’s “interpretation”) but HOW they’re written.
AiG says long discussions about what could not be, how things may be interpreted, how Evolution laws MAY be different, and even tries to say “this phisical law may have been different in the past”. NO reference, no proofs, just long blablabla on hypotesis.
TalkOrigins is simple, clean and elengant. This is true because this that and that. This is false because of this. AND LOTS of REFERENCES, STUDIES, PROOFS.

Can’t you see the difference in METHOD?

The vast majority of scientist goes into Evolution because it’s VASTLY CONSIDERED VALID, even if there are some parts unclear. Should ALL of the scientist start from square 1? Should all of the scientist starts with a new theory of gas?

And then you are doing something very incorrect: moving the subject.
From “can you explain how does fit vestigial organs with Creationism theory?” you moved to “do you mind if you have vestigial organs?”
I never asked you to “care” for the vestigial organs. I asked you how does them fit with creationism, since they PERFECTLY FIT with evolutionary theory.
“Who cares”? That’s the best answer you can give?

Then the analogy with the painting is absurd. By saying that, you are saying that evolutionist dislikes the paint “because they don’t know the reason”. I’m not questioning the value of the painting or in the human body “perfection”.

I want to know if god has created us humans why we have parts that are not functioning for what they’re designed for.

Here the fact is that the Church told you that Bible has been inspired by God and is The Truth. Since you built your life around this foundations, questioning this will cause the house to crumble.

Critical thinking is god blessing, I think.

Peace to you
Andrea

Andrea,
You posed this question a couple days ago:
“If the cosmos had a beginning, then it either came from nothing, or someone created it. Either God designed it, or the cosmos created itself from NOTHING.”
Or it always existed. Why you don’t include this option?

I did include that option. I think you overlooked my discussion below (from my June 20 post):
When addressing the theory of evolution, you have to take a step back and ask, “Where did the cosmos come from?” There are only two possible answers. Either it had a beginning, or it has always existed. The second law of thermodynamics refutes the second claim that the cosmos has always existed because that law states that energy continuously decreases over time. So, if the cosmos has always existed, it would be dead by now.

I have enjoyed this discussion. It is always good to hear other perspectives. I will leave this discussion with one last comment:

When I was in college, I came to the realization that if I was the only person who lived on earth, Jesus still would have come and died on the cross–for me. He loves me so much that He would rather suffer a cruel, agonizing, and humiliating death than live without ME for all eternity.

And Jesus would have done the same for you, Andrea. If you were the only person who lived on earth, He would still have died on the cross just for you. He knew everything about you, Andrea De Togni, before you were born. Nothing you do can make Him love you any more, and nothing you do can make Him love you any less. The deepest desire of God’s heart is that YOU be reunited with Him and live with Him for all eternity.

You might not believe this, but I sincerely hope and pray that one day you will.

Good-bye!

Sex in marriage GREATLY reduces the occurrence and transmission of STDs, because both partners will have been tested prior to marriage (in most cases, I assume). There’s no danger of HIV, no danger of illegitimacy, no danger of anything illicit because it’s within the covenant of marriage between two loving, consenting partners. THIS is why God expects us to only enjoy it with our spouses, not because He wants to shake His fingers at us and tell us how bad we are!

I came across MANY verses in my chronological Bible yesterday that exactly speak to this very thing. If anyone is interested in them, I’ll be happy to share them.

Beautifully said, Ali!

But I want to share with you about God’s intentions for sex and our bodies. God is loving, not deceitful. He does not give us this wonderful gift of sex only to tease us with it. That is what Satan has done – used lust and immorality to turn sex into something it’s not.

In fact, God wants us to fully enjoy sex.
Proverbs 5:18-19 – “May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.”

Read I Corinthians 7:1-7 – God tells us that in marriage, we should be doing it and doing it often!

The Bible is full of beautiful metaphors and poetry about sex.

But there is a huge responsibility that comes with sex, and God commands us to respect that by respecting our bodies. In marriage, sex unites the couple and they become one flesh (Gen. 2:24).

Think about it from a parent’s perspective. I want the best for my children. I don’t want them to fall victim to any of the ugliness that sex can become: addiction, obsession, jealousy, infidelity, disease, etc. I only want this because I love my children. And that is exactly how God feels about us. Even more. He commands us because He loves us. Unconditionally (He will always forgive us).

Angela, consider this other perspective. I see your point – sex should be thoroughly enjoyed! But consider how much more thoroughly it can be enjoyed (and the respect and honor we show our spouse and our own body) when we follow God’s wishes. It’s a win-win!

To begin, you’re right, Christians/creationists spend a lot of time trying to disprove evolution. But why is that an issue as the theory of evolution was thought of because a person, Darwin, couldn’t believe the creation account was all there was/that it was entirely true. At the core of it, he was trying to disprove what he didn’t believe was right-creation, and prove what he thought was/could be an alternative. Creationists are doing the same.

The statement that there’s been no proof ever of a created earth, really just continues the bigger debate over what in science is clearly black and white. For example, going back to the law of gravity, black and white, no gray areas.

However, and this is something many evolutionists will not admit to, evolutionary science is not so black and white-tons of gray area there. Fossils are a good example. If you look at the fossil record and layers of the earth, there’s more than one way to interpret the not 100% conclusive information they offer.

If you start from the premise that earth is billions of years old, fossils and strata can be used to show “proof” of evolution. However, that same data has also been shown to show “proof” of a fast, sudden formation (which we believe was the flood). Here’s just one article that talks about that http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record. In addition, there are research methods long held as absolutely accurate that are not, but you need them to be accurate to make all the pieces fit in evolution. Either way, both sides are trying to interpret data that is not 100% black and white, using imperfect human processes, that’s why we are constantly learning and accepting new stuff. This is happening in evolutionary research too, but many refuse to see that, or teach it and that’s where I take issue.

Do holes in evolutionary theory show that something else is possibly right? Why not? Does it prove what that something else is? It may, but it may not. From purely a scientific perspective, could there be other options besides evolution? Sure why not? That’s what science is all about, but for the most part the majority of the science community isn’t looking in any other direction, believing evolution is already the answer (but again it has not and can’t be proven 100%).

With regard to parts of our body that appear useless, or other unanswered puzzles of nature- my answer honestly is who cares? I don’t care why my appendix doesn’t seem to do anything. People live just fine without knowing. Why do some cells turn into cancer cells? I don’t know, but since it proves a danger to our health, I’m glad someone’s trying to figure it out. Maybe someday they’ll determine it has something to do with our appendix. If I believe a creator made it that way, would it be nice to know why? I suppose, but does it make a big difference? Nope.

It’s kind of like this, if you see a painting, do you care why the artist used red in the upper right corner though it doesn’t seem to fit? Do you still like the painting? If the artist cannot be reached for comment as to why she did it, does it diminish the value of the work if you still like it?

I’d wanted to keep this short but it’s not working that way, sorry all .

Really, Andrea (and others reading all of this) it all comes down to what was said earlier which I agree with, the Bible is first a book of faith. For some though, you only accept parts of it because you can’t prove other parts. But that’s a key, that’s why the whole concept is called FAITH, and not science.

As humans, we like to prove things, we want to know how the star of Bethlehem could have possibly happened through the known laws of space and physics. If you come at it from that angle, you’re right, it’s hard if not impossible to prove. However, if one starts from the point of view of faith in an all powerful God, that God has and continues to work in miracles outside and above the laws of nature as we understand them, proof is no longer necessary. Miracles aren’t proven, they’re marveled at for what they are.

Also, there is a TON of stuff I don’t understand about God, the world and my faith (and I’ve been a Christian my entire life). I often want solid answers or more information as do you. Maybe I’ll get them someday, maybe I won’t (hoping God has a lot of time set aside for Q & A in heaven ). But that doesn’t mean I’m waiting to believe in some stuff until I can prove it.

Science is a wonderful tool, but not our only tool for this life. Through faith, not science, I believe in God and his Word. If you do not, our conversation could go on till the end of time and little will change (and I don’t want to do that to Marla’s blog space ) My hope for you is that you do take opportunity to consider the scriptures, all of them, without the eyes of science. See what comes of it. If after you do, you want to talk further, I don’t think it should be here, however, I’m sure there are several of us who’d be open to hearing from you, including myself.

Peace & Blessings,
Cheryl

Don’t know if that could make sense if I spent 20 years talking about it, but studying the Bible in depth has been the best thing I have ever done for my spiritual growth.

One more thing, for what it’s worth… a TRUE Christian will NEVER harm another in the name of religion. A true Christian emulates Christ, who NEVER condones killing for His name. So to say: “Christians have killed a lot of people trying to persuade them of the goodness of their god (something quite contradictory)” is NOT speaking of a true Christian. Just had to get that out there.

Still too early to determine baby’s gender — I will give birth sometime in late winter. Have a wonderful day, Andrea, and thank you for the dialogue!