Part 2

Also, you failed to even mention the Appendix argument or Carbon-dating, which are probably the strongest points for evolution and the first thing you would need to disprove for empiricists to take your argument seriously. Instead, you relied on quotes from the Bible, to show us how scientifically savvy the old goat farmers of Jerusalem were. However, there are also several scientific INaccuracies in the Bible, and this also makes your "No-Contradictions in the Bible" argument start to falter. First of all, the Bible makes it very clear that the stars are nothing more than little balls of light that will fall from the sky once Jesus returns. Also, it says that the Earth was made before the sun. Both of these flatly condradict several LAWS in astrophysics. Then you've mentioned your science, but forgotten your history. After the fall of Rome, Western Europe fell into the Dark Ages, and a lot of the scientific accomplishments and discoveries made before then were lost, including the stuff found out during Biblical times. What wasn't lost was subject to slander and libel as "Heathen" or "Satanic" by the Anti-Byzantine and Anti-Abbasid Catholic Church. And then we come back to the "No-Contradiction" argument. During the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church managed to keep people under their thumb by fear and guilt. (Those charmers) Anyone or anything that contradicted them was burned into ashes, never to be seen again. You want biblical contradictions, examine the Apocrypha, a whole slew of contradictions to the Bible. Oh and please, don't pull the "Intelligent Design has just as much right in the schools as evolution". As I said before, evolution has nothing to do wiith religion or the origin of life, while Creationism does. As such, teaching something that pertains to a specific religion in public schools is an infringement on the multitude of other creation myths that other people believe in. If it really means that much to you, there are Private schools established specifically so as to teach good education alongside Christian theology. Public school is for all religions, and all viewpoints. Finally, you've probably noticed that I haven't mentioned anything about the Big Bang Theory. So, let me ask you this: Don't you think it is far more glorious, and far more interesting, to think that there was a being so omnipotent and so omniscient, that it was able to plan out something as complex and wonderful as the creation of matter and energy and atomic bonding and suns and planets and micro-organisms, which in their attempt to carry on more and more valuable traits, starting procreating with other micro-organisms to create more and more complex organisms, which eventually evolved into macroorganisms which evolved into quadrupeds which evolved into bipeds which evolved into humans, all just from something as simple as two atoms colliding?

Part 2

Also, you failed to even mention the Appendix argument or Carbon-dating, which are probably the strongest points for evolution and the first thing you would need to disprove for empiricists to take your argument seriously. Instead, you relied on quotes from the Bible, to show us how scientifically savvy the old goat farmers of Jerusalem were. However, there are also several scientific INaccuracies in the Bible, and this also makes your "No-Contradictions in the Bible" argument start to falter. First of all, the Bible makes it very clear that the stars are nothing more than little balls of light that will fall from the sky once Jesus returns. Also, it says that the Earth was made before the sun. Both of these flatly condradict several LAWS in astrophysics. Then you've mentioned your science, but forgotten your history. After the fall of Rome, Western Europe fell into the Dark Ages, and a lot of the scientific accomplishments and discoveries made before then were lost, including the stuff found out during Biblical times. What wasn't lost was subject to slander and libel as "Heathen" or "Satanic" by the Anti-Byzantine and Anti-Abbasid Catholic Church. And then we come back to the "No-Contradiction" argument. During the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church managed to keep people under their thumb by fear and guilt. (Those charmers) Anyone or anything that contradicted them was burned into ashes, never to be seen again. You want biblical contradictions, examine the Apocrypha, a whole slew of contradictions to the Bible. Oh and please, don't pull the "Intelligent Design has just as much right in the schools as evolution". As I said before, evolution has nothing to do wiith religion or the origin of life, while Creationism does. As such, teaching something that pertains to a specific religion in public schools is an infringement on the multitude of other creation myths that other people believe in. If it really means that much to you, there are Private schools established specifically so as to teach good education alongside Christian theology. Public school is for all religions, and all viewpoints. Finally, you've probably noticed that I haven't mentioned anything about the Big Bang Theory. So, let me ask you this: Don't you think it is far more glorious, and far more interesting, to think that there was a being so omnipotent and so omniscient, that it was able to plan out something as complex and wonderful as the creation of matter and energy and atomic bonding and suns and planets and micro-organisms, which in their attempt to carry on more and more valuable traits, starting procreating with other micro-organisms to create more and more complex organisms, which eventually evolved into macroorganisms which evolved into quadrupeds which evolved into bipeds which evolved into humans, all just from something as simple as two atoms colliding?

Part 1

Okay, this is a response to both your original post and several comments and resulting arguments following your post. First of all, let me clarify to everyone exactly what the theory of Evolution is, because there seems to be some misconceptions going on about that. Evolution is the idea that, as millions of years pass, traits in organisms that support the most likely chance for survival and procreation will continue, while less valuable traits will eventually be dropped or rendered obsolete. For those of you that say "Well, Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, therefore it's false." It's not supposed to explain the origin of life, it never was. Evolution is merely supposed to explain the origin of species, thus the title of Darwin's work. Contrary to popular belief, evolution has nothing to do with agnosticism or secularism. It is the result of empiricism, which is the train of thought that states that truths in this world can be discovered through experimentation and observation. Another uncommonly known fact: Darwin never thought that the ideas of evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive. Nay indeed, he thought that he had found scientific proof of God's grace by discovering why we have differing species in differing locations. Yes, Darwin eventually gave up the idea of evolution, but that was because he was constantly tormented and bullied by both the scientific community and his wife after proposing it, especially after the death of his daughter Annie. Can you imagine what it must have been like, to be bombasted every waking minute by the idea that you killed your own daughter for having a radical idea?

Part 1

Okay, this is a response to both your original post and several comments and resulting arguments following your post. First of all, let me clarify to everyone exactly what the theory of Evolution is, because there seems to be some misconceptions going on about that. Evolution is the idea that, as millions of years pass, traits in organisms that support the most likely chance for survival and procreation will continue, while less valuable traits will eventually be dropped or rendered obsolete. For those of you that say "Well, Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, therefore it's false." It's not supposed to explain the origin of life, it never was. Evolution is merely supposed to explain the origin of species, thus the title of Darwin's work. Contrary to popular belief, evolution has nothing to do with agnosticism or secularism. It is the result of empiricism, which is the train of thought that states that truths in this world can be discovered through experimentation and observation. Another uncommonly known fact: Darwin never thought that the ideas of evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive. Nay indeed, he thought that he had found scientific proof of God's grace by discovering why we have differing species in differing locations. Yes, Darwin eventually gave up the idea of evolution, but that was because he was constantly tormented and bullied by both the scientific community and his wife after proposing it, especially after the death of his daughter Annie. Can you imagine what it must have been like, to be bombasted every waking minute by the idea that you killed your own daughter for having a radical idea? Also, an idea doesn't get to be called a "theory" unless there is a reasonable amount of proof behind it, and the scientific definition of a theory is an "if this-then that" statement. Creationism is not a theory because it doesn't make any predictions. Also, the Discovery Institute, which is the leading organization on Intelligent Design, promotes but doesn't research their ideas. They have no real standard for determining if an something is "Irreducibly Complex". Just saying that something is too complex to be created by evolution isn't science at all, merely a statement. Now, for your actual argument. The problem with trying to prove Intelligent Design is that there are only two really peer-reviewed papers, as it were, of Intelligent Design out there. There's the Bible, and there's Stephen Meyer's lovely little presentation to the Ohio School Board of Education. You seem to be relying almost exclusively on the Bible, and right there is where flaws start to appear in your argument. Any piece on any subject is target for bias, that's why we always research differing ideas. However, it seems that even your differing sources are merely secondary sources to the primary source of the Bible. Even if the Bible is the most pious piece of literature in the world (which I'm sure you'd say it is), you unfortunately cannot create a valid argument based exclusively on it, because it's just that, a single piece of work. Any bias that could be present can only be speculated at, and even if there is no bias in it, there's still that nagging little feeling of doubt. Bias kills arguments.

the appendix actually does have a use... We can just live without it, the same as we can live with only one kidney. the misconception that organs like our appendix or our tonsils are useless is false, according to more recent studies. Just google "uses of appendix"...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-appendix-does-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277.html

As to the question about Cain, the Bible doesnt say God didn't create more people. He could have, if he had wanted to. Or Cain could have married his sister (the Bible does say that Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain, Abel, and Seth). So that is also a possibility.

Broski, your scientific ignorance was reveled in the first sentence.

To clear up your Big Bang fallacies, watch...

htt p: //w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=ANt psunRYIs&feature=ch annel_video_title

Regarding evolution, watch the series "Foundational Falsehoods of Crationism" from start to finish.