Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[hammer01 29]

....

 

This honestly doesn't prove anything... It's just insulting Christians....

Do I hear an echo in here?

[Uniquename111 52]

Do I hear an echo in here?

 

Maybe you should've read the comment I put next to the video saying to watch from 2:54 on for 3 minutes. That's where the kids start talking about why Creationism isn't included in the school curriculum (stupid, I know...). Watch THAT part and you'll understand what I'm saying. He is truly "making fun of" the stupid fundamentalist christian kids who were in the original video, but no offense, they should have saw it coming for saying such B.S...

[hammer01 29]

Maybe you should've read the comment I put next to the video saying to watch from 2:54 on for 3 minutes. That's where the kids start talking about why Creationism isn't included in the school curriculum (stupid, I know...). Watch THAT part and you'll understand what I'm saying. He is truly "making fun of" the stupid fundamentalist christian kids who were in the original video, but no offense, they should have saw it coming for saying such B.S...

I did... But what does this prove? nothing....

[Uniquename111 52]

I did... But what does this prove? nothing....

 

What does this prove? Nothing much... all it shows that even if there ever were to be a consensus on this forum whether or not Evolution is true (which in my opinion will never happen. It would be like an argument on the Multiverse theory, though, Evolution has WAY more proof), there will always be stubborn fundamentalists and radicals at both ends, like in any issue EVER. Plus, as said, I don't believe we'll ever come to a consensus, since everyone posting on this topic has an agenda, even those who say to not be bias and are just mediators, creationists want to believe their religion knows all, supporters of Evolution want to see it become a law... I seriously think, at this point, the topic should be locked, since all this will be is a continuos flame war against others' beliefs.

 

Edit- as it is my personal opinion that creationists are stubborn and foolish, while the creationists probably believe supporters of Evolution, like myself (Atheist or not, I'm not Atheist though...), that WE'RE idiots. No party is willing to bend, no matter how much proof is shoved into creationists' faces, they'll never admit Evolution to be a law, and no matter how many (stupid) rebuttals creationists give, supporters of Evolution will continue to believe it to be law.

[hammer01 29]

What does this prove? Nothing much... all it shows that even if there ever were to be a consensus on this forum whether or not Evolution is true (which in my opinion will never happen. It would be like an argument on the Multiverse theory, though, Evolution has WAY more proof), there will always be stubborn fundamentalists and radicals at both ends, like in any issue EVER. Plus, as said, I don't believe we'll ever come to a consensus, since everyone posting on this topic has an agenda, even those who say to not be bias and are just mediators, creationists want to believe their religion knows all, supporters of Evolution want to see it become a law... I seriously think, at this point, the topic should be locked, since all this will be is a continuos flame war against others' beliefs.

Doesn't mean we cant discuss this civilly...

[Uniquename111 52]

Doesn't mean we cant discuss this civilly...

 

Has it been civilly, we're discussing Slavery, the Holocaus, we're getting nowhere, and we're not even being civil

[hammer01 29]

Has it been civilly, we're discussing Slavery, the Holocaus, we're getting nowhere, and we're not even being civil

...does it matter that we are getting nowhere...? And i do think most of us are being pretty dang civil...

[The Best Basileus 97]

The reason we're discussing slavery and the Holocaust is that no evolutionist can logically say that they were wrong. Evolution has no morality. I'm not saying all evolutionists don't follow the rules. I'm not saying all they want to do is kill. All I'm saying is that based on the evolutionist's philosophy, slavery, murder, or any other type of crime cannot logically be called "wrong." I hope nobody takes this as slander against atheists, but what I'm saying is true.

[The Best Basileus 97]

How is creationism scientific? A Creative Force for the universe must exist due to the following points: The universe cannot be infinite, that much creationists and evolutionists alike agree on. The evolutionist, however, cannot explain where his "infinitely dense point" came from. This point WAS the universe. It follows the same laws. I can't have been eternal. Even if that was true, something had to put it here. This necessitates a God.

 

Lago, stop calling me racist. I'd like an fm to support me on this one, if they could. Please refrain from needless insults and flaming. Anyway, the fact that you need to shows that you don't know how else to respond to a God being logically and scientifically necessary and Evolution being logically and scientifically impossible.

 

"Edit- as it is my personal opinion that creationists are stubborn and foolish, while the creationists probably believe supporters of Evolution, like myself (Atheist or not, I'm not Atheist though...), that WE'RE idiots. No party is willing to bend, no matter how much proof is shoved into creationists' faces, they'll never admit Evolution to be a law, and no matter how many (stupid) rebuttals creationists give, supporters of Evolution will continue to believe it to be law."
I really must say that I do not think that using scientific law  and universally recognized logic to demonstrate something is an ignorant, foolish, or stupid rebuttal. Besides that, the only succinctly stated arguments have come from the side of creationists, and all the evolutionists do is pick their arguments apart and offer rebuttals, none of which have proven logically sound once examined. Nobody can face a scientific proof and say "That proof is a stupid rebuttal" and call his own rebuttal "so much proof shoved in the creationists' faces." There has been no proof put forward by any evolutionist on this thread in the time I have been active on it. The only proofs have been put forth by myself, and they have withstood the review of my peers. I implore a proponent of evolution to directly reply to this post with a proof of evolution based on facts and logic. All of us here have written papers, so I would like for it to be in the form of a persuasive paper, please. If you continue to nitpick at everything said by the creationist side rather than give your own arguments, then I think it should be plain for all to see which side has unquestionably carried the debate.

 

4 words:

 

Come

 

At

 

Me

 

Bro.

 

:D
 

[hammer01 29]

How is creationism scientific? A Creative Force for the universe must exist. The universe cannot be infinite, that much creationists and evolutionists alike agree on. The evolutionist, however, cannot explain where his "infinitely dense point" came from. This point WAS the universe. It follows the same laws. I can't have been eternal. Even if that was true, something had to put it here. This necessitates a God.

 

Lago, stop calling me racist. I'd like an fm to support me on this one, if they could. Please refrain from needless insults and flaming. Anyway, the fact that you need to shows that you don't know how else to respond to a God being logically and scientifically necessary and Evolution being logically and scientifically impossible.

[Merkaken 516]

Personally, I hope we weren't created by evolution, which isn't meant as an insult to those of you who do believe that evolution created us. It just scares me a bit that if I die that there's just nothing.

[hammer01 29]

Personally, I hope we weren't created by evolution, which isn't meant as an insult to those of you who do believe that evolution created us. It just scares me a bit that if I die that there's just nothing.

Well, if you read back a few pages, there are some pretty good proofs that Evolution is false and that there is a God...

[Jistuma 1996]

The reason we're discussing slavery and the Holocaust is that no evolutionist can logically say that they were wrong. Evolution has no morality. I'm not saying all evolutionists don't follow the rules. I'm not saying all they want to do is kill. All I'm saying is that based on the evolutionist's philosophy, slavery, murder, or any other type of crime cannot logically be called "wrong." I hope nobody takes this as slander against atheists, but what I'm saying is true.

Of Course evolution has no morality, it's a scientific theory, it has nothing to do with morality. Believing in bacon does not mean we have no morality, bacon is just food, and has nothing to do with morality.

I believe in evolution, does that mean I have no morals? NO, so please STOP talking about morals when you talk about evolution. Morals are of a person, evolution has NOTHING to do with a person. There is NO evolution philosophy, there is no right and wrong in a scientific theory, it just says what happens. What you are saying is NOT true, you are assuming many things when you don't even understand what evolution is.

Again NO more talk about morals when discussing evolution as it has NOTHING to do with them.

Personally, I hope we weren't created by evolution, which isn't meant as an insult to those of you who do believe that evolution created us. It just scares me a bit that if I die that there's just nothing.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with creation, only evolution of species. On the other hand, evolution also does not talk about what happens when you die. You may believe in the after life and in heaven and hell, and in god, and still take evolution as something that happens.

 

How is creationism scientific? A Creative Force for the universe must exist due to the following points: The universe cannot be infinite, that much creationists and evolutionists alike agree on. The evolutionist, however, cannot explain where his "infinitely dense point" came from. Actually... This has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with the big bang theory. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. This point WAS the universe. It follows the same laws. I can't have been eternal. Even if that was true, something had to put it here. "Something had put it there" implies someone placed it there, try something more like "Somehow it had to be there"This necessitates a God. "Or time aliens"

 

"Edit- as it is my personal opinion that creationists are stubborn and foolish, while the creationists probably believe supporters of Evolution, like myself (Atheist or not, I'm not Atheist though...), that WE'RE idiots. No party is willing to bend, no matter how much proof is shoved into creationists' faces, they'll never admit Evolution to be a law, and no matter how many (stupid) rebuttals creationists give, supporters of Evolution will continue to believe it to be law."

I really must say that I do not think that using scientific law  and universally recognized logic to demonstrate something is an ignorant, foolish, or stupid rebuttal. Besides that, the only succinctly stated arguments have come from the side of creationists, and all the evolutionists do is pick their arguments apart and offer rebuttals, none of which have proven logically sound once examined. Nobody can face a scientific proof and say "That proof is a stupid rebuttal" and call his own rebuttal "so much proof shoved in the creationists' faces." There has been no proof put forward by any evolutionist on this thread in the time I have been active on it. I have placed proofs on this thread a few number of times,  people have went there and said "This is wrong because" and I had to teach them basic physics. You do not even know what the second law of termaldynamics really means, and you do not wish to learn it, or refuse to be taught by me. While you don't learn what the law trully says and what it implies, you will forever think you are right, while you are infact, misinformed. All you have shown me in regards to 'proof' of creationism, is talking about how evolution has no morals, and that god is required for morals, and then speak of things before the theory of evolution could be placed, and talk about evolution there, as if evolution has anything to do with the big bang, the formation of a planet, politics, morals, etc etc etc. The only proofs have been put forth by myself, and they have withstood the review of my peers. I implore a proponent of evolution to directly reply to this post with a proof of evolution based on facts and logic. All of us here have written papers, so I would like for it to be in the form of a persuasive paper, please. If you continue to nitpick at everything said by the creationist side rather than give your own arguments, then I think it should be plain for all to see which side has unquestionably carried the debate.

I will do so, but I have no idea what you mean by paper.

So lets begin, proofs of evolution:

Fossil records - The huge amount of fossils there are which represent how the species changed with time.

DNA testing - DNA similarities between the species

Observable evolution - In microscopical beings, in bugs, in plants, in animals.

Observable mutations - Even seen in humans.

Similarities of growing of fetus - Fetus of animals that are close related are more alike then those that are not close related.

And then there are a few more. Please ask me what you wish to know about those proofs. I already told you why the second law of termaldynamics does not effect the theory of evolution, but I'll say it again. For life to even exist, exchanges of energy have to happen. The rise of entropy means those changes of energy will stop happening. The second law states that entropy in closed systems can only rise. This would be bad for life if the earth was a closed system. Earth is not a closed system, so the second law of thermaldynamics does not stop life, nor stops evolution.

[argonian 14254]

How is creationism scientific? A Creative Force for the universe must exist due to the following points: The universe cannot be infinite, that much creationists and evolutionists alike agree on. The evolutionist, however, cannot explain where his "infinitely dense point" came from. This point WAS the universe. It follows the same laws. I can't have been eternal. Even if that was true, something had to put it here. This necessitates a God.

You just argued against the Big Bang, not Evolution. Evolution is saying that humans and modern species evolved from others through mutations and adaptations and if you go far enough back you get to microbes and stuff. It conflicts with the idea that God zapped each creature onto the earth but it doesn't conflict with the Christian God creating the universe(if you think of the days as non-literal and such).

[hammer01 29]

Im just going to copy-past this page:

 

Firstly, let's consider some of the broader questions the theory of evolution needs to try and answer ...

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must also attempt to explain how the following came into being.

1. The sun and the earth (without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (without the first cell there can be no other life.)

3. The formation of all other living things

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell
all came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. 
Living things are able to adapt to changing environments through the
process of natural selection. Even so natural selection has no targets
or plan in mind. It is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations
which are also random, mindless and blind.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design,
Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law
such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at
Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical
physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and
will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like
something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”¹¹

Lennox
explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence
of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the
existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically
incoherent."¹² Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”¹³

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes;
"What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains
nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".¹⁴

The universe cannot have created itself!

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been
thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics
show the universe must have had a beginning. 

The First Law of
Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the
Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually
decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available
existing energy would have already been used up.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

EVIDENCE 2:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always
go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence
to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another
way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly
getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all
about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself
it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never
enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses,
and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to
let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and
everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by
itself - and that is what the second law is all about."¹

As
Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates,
collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete
opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second
Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution
would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when
left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open
system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.
Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above,
the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system
makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin
who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very
good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so
non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." ⁹

As Dr
John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known
violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second
law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally
well to open systems. …"⁷

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

EVIDENCE 3.  Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A
Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every
organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from
nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as
we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the
principal of biogenesis." ⁸

So when it comes to real
science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and
experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came
from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying
something repeatedly doesn't make it true!

Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical
absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural
processes he was suggesting in his theory.  Darwin’s own deductive
reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.     

Darwin said: "To
suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of
light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest degree." ³

No mechanism has
been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the
human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection
and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live
and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory,
circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to
survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be
functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the
same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years.
Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming
about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully
functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction
could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be
pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in
perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both
worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement!
Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as
well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such
systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be
thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive
system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

EVIDENCE 5:   The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate
fossil organisms present in the fossil record.  Despite over a hundred
years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the
'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists
such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
not based on the evidence of fossils." ²

What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links?
Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes?
Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on
genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW
genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of
organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed
for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.⁴
This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to
be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human
terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly,
they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly
the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly
wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law
of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more
disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put
forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take
place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation)
and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without
the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution
(things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more
disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The
chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and
chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a
junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"⁵

In
a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life
could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the
odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one
against …”¹⁰

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9^th power. BUT
the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200
amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power
of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types
amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in
the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino
acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce
even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context.  Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

*
The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly,
with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

*
The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature
red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The
constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike
the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from
minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and
extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior
are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of
other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it
associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

Probability Arguments in Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

Great scientists from the past and present talk on Evolution and God

How Antony Flew (an outspoken atheist for 60 years) came to believe there is a God

Four Things That Two Ex Sceptics Got Wrong

THE LINK BETWEEN MODERN SCIENCE AND BELIEF IN A CREATOR

C.S. Lewis who was a novelist, poet and academic showed the very
strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought
and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver) when he
said;. “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature
and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”¹⁴

GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie
around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it
into words." (Lord Kelvin)

"I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler)

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

Robert Boyle believed
in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension,
and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon
earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule)

"There
are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but
what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the
human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun)

"Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus)

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister)

"Atheism
is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at
the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat
and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living,
intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of
the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided
mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech
Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds
a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)

"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)

"The
correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record
and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to
conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner,
Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos
National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics
from UCLU.)

"We have already seen that no such system could
possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created
in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus,
Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant
Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in
Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)

"The
fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution,
yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms
to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the
Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a
PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)

"I …
have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins
and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God
created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor
is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of
Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has
authored over 80 scientific articles.)

"I believe God provides
evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our
lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in
science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an
Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr
Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason
University, USA.)

"At the same time I found I could reject
evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I
could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual
suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at
the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas
Kinetics.)

"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor
could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent
natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the
Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for
Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant
Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a
research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the
scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of
the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe]
ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is
about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final
rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there
for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of
Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in
Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human
Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

And here is the page.