Evolution

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Hey guys what are your thoughts on evolution?

I am personally very against it, though I understand where they get a lot of their ideas. My dad is a chemist so we talk a lot about the chemistry of it all and what scientists have found about the subject. My dad even has a map of how scientists have studied where everyone came from and how they got everywhere. Maybe I can even get it on the CT website for you guys to see.

[Misty Hills]

yeah, I am very against it. I totally disagree with evolution, i mean evil-solution(haha) completely. They just come up with a solution to convince peope that God didn't create the world, it created itself. And instead of man being made in the own image of God, man came from apes and baboons instead. lol. Haha how silly.

[glow=blue,2,300]~Misty:)[/glow]

[New Titania (TD)]

Titanian,

If you e-mail me that picture (you know my e-mail address) I'll put it on the site!

[Triphus (Titanian)]

I emailed the picture to you TD, but if anyone wants to see it before he can get it on the web I will be glad to email it to anyone.

[Mop]

I'm against evolution as well. Mankind from apes. ;D

[ApologeticChrist]

Though I am a Creationist, I don't think that anyone who seriously looks at an evolutionist world could say that it is an obvious lie. As a matter of fact, their point is just as valid as ours if you don't take the Bible to be literal, which millions of our brethren don't.

Experiments have been done that show it is possible for life to in essence create itself. I grant you, the process they describe would have taken hundreds of millions of years and some very odd circumstances all together, but it is not that hard to believe, considering geological evidence suggests that for 900 million years, the world did not have life on it at all.

Evolution is a fact in and of itself. You cannot deny that Darwin's thoughts on creatures changing based on their surroundings made sense. Heck, we do it today, and can watch it occuring. The fossil record is no where near perfect, but it follows a very reasonable pattern set up by Darwin and refined by Stephen J. Gould.

Personally, I will take God's Word in the Bible over lines drawn by man over a series of rocks, but you cannot blow off Evolutionism like you would the Lock Ness Monster or Elvis sightings. The only reason I know anything about it is because I was an Evolutionist for 16 years prior to being saved, and actually considered paleontology my life goal.

Just something to chew on.

-R. S. of UC

[Mop]

I wnat to know how advanced a species can get if it's top scientists think we used to be slime? Let's see slime get as advanced as we are!

[Misty Hills]

yep yep. MOP is very right.

Another thing is, with the bigbang theory, they say that everything created iself. All of a sudden out of nothing there was something. But how can something create itself without something to create that? How could something out of nothing exist. God had to have started it.

[ApologeticChrist]

Then you really ought to be more careful in what you denounce. The Big Bang theory has about as much to do with the Evolutionists theory as Egyptians inventing paper has to do with the validity of the Bible. Both create the base on which the other is made. Though, I do have to agree, the base for the Big Bang theory is hardly concrete.

Now, in reference to your "slime" difficulties, I reccomend you actually read a book on evolution seriously. Please keep in mind that I myself do not agree with Evolution, but I do not want people to simply denounce what they do not know or understand. This "slime" that you're talking about is most likely the highly acclaimed primortial soup wich was to consist of several simple amino acids and proteins that spontaniously created life, possibly with the assistance of lightning for an energy catalyst. It isn't THAT impossible. Given the assumed conditions based on geological evidence, these chemical compounds could easily have been created in pools on the surface of the earth as it rained. Scientists have actually attempted to duplicate the circumstances, and while not having created little beasties that are similar to toejam, they have created some pretty complicated protiens. Keep in mind, this is a couple scientists in a few labs over a period of maybe 50 years. If you think of the whole earth as a lab, constantly having the conditions right for over a billion years, the chances of life creating itself become much more likely. You then have a further 3.9 billion years for the duplicating simple protien to develope (one at a time of course) a cell membrane, cilia, multicell cooperation, multicell function, specialized cell function, specialized organs, air working lungs, waterproof eggs, hair, warm bodies and eventually quite the brain. Like I said earlier, evolution itself cannot be denied. The paths that paleontologist have created are scetchy, but believable to someone who does not believe in Creationism. As a matter of fact, other than Creationism, I've heard nothing better. Before you make fun of Evolutionists, try to understand where they are coming from. You will soon find that in terms of scientific evidence, they have you rather nailed to the wall.

My point is not to say that Evolutionism is how all life came into existance. God only knows that, and He handed us a book with His explaination. I'm inclined to believe it as He has been eerily correct up to this point in many thousands of other matters. My point in this is that you are taking on Creationism by faith in God. You honestly are not going to get much scientific proof to back you up. You simply have to believe the Word of God. If you don't, then it is logical to believe Evolutionism. It requires faith, and debating with strong Evolutionists will get you nowhere. Believe me, I have tried.

Just something to chew on.

-R. S. of UC

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Hey ApolegeticChrist,

I semi-agree with you about evolutionism. I mean I understand where you are coming from, but my dad is a chemist and he is constantly researching and doing studies on evolutionism and it turns out that the experiments that evolutionists have done are not completely true.

We still can't make a model atmosphere so the whole electrical charge hitting the atmosphere thing may create amino acids, but they may have a wrong atmosphere. Also, even if you can create amino acids how do they come to life?

Say you have a dead fly, it has all of the organs it needs all of the cells and all the amino acids and most everything else. So how come that fly isn't alive. And if that fly is all of those things and still not alive then how can you say that a certain formula can create the building blocks of life that it will be alive?

[ApologeticChrist]

First, let me thank you for replying. Then, on to the lovely exchange of debate. (Before I start, I must say that I live for this)

"We still can't make a model atmosphere so the whole electrical charge hitting the atmosphere thing may create amino acids, but they may have a wrong atmosphere. Also, even if you can create amino acids how do they come to life? "

Take all of this not from my heart, but from the lips of a biology teacher. I will again reiterate my beliefs at the end. Anyway, the lightning would not have much effect on anything in the atmosphere as the necessary chemicals would be too heavy to last long in the thick primortial atmosphere. They would instead have to be on the ground, and with a charged atmosphere and rather large shallow seas would have lots of oppertunity to have lightning strike the right pool. DNA is just a very complicated amino acid, and it gets much simpler when you take out all of the mixed up RNA from millions of years of virus contamination. Regardless, the only thing that separates life from death material is the material's tendency to make more of itself, copies if you will. These copies continue to make copies, feeding off of material and other life forms. The lightning catalyzed that change in the amino acid that makes it twist one protein around to make it naturally make copies of itself chemically. Over hundreds of millions of years, this is not unlikely, especially in the perfect conditions with many easy to manipulate proteins at hand.

"Say you have a dead fly, it has all of the organs it needs all of the cells and all the amino acids and most everything else. So how come that fly isn't alive. And if that fly is all of those things and still not alive then how can you say that a certain formula can create the building blocks of life that it will be alive?"

This is a totally different subject. The fly has all of the materials needed for life save one, typically the cause of death. The fly would presumably still be alive if it had the energy, was not being attack by disease, did not have irreparable damage to it's organs etc. The reason why these organs do not rejuvenate is most likely that after one cycle of reproduction, it is not as important of the survival of the parent. Once there are offspring, the important thing is that those offspring make more offspring successfully. The parent could have life threatening illness the instant it gives birth, and this means nothing as long as future generations give birth before they hit that illness.

Of course, we all know the answer from a God fearing Christian's point of view. We ARE the God fearing Christians. You aren't going to get a lot of help from scientists or history in proving God's existance. As a matter of fact.... you're going to get a lot more hinderance than help these days. People don't want to see a Christian world anymore. More faith is in science, and I wonder why.

-R. S. of UC

[Triphus (Titanian)]

I'm glad to see that someone else loves to debate around here.

Now I believe we are having a slight problem of semantics.

"Regardless, the only thing that separates life from death material is the material's tendency to make more of itself, copies if you will. These copies continue to make copies, feeding off of material and other life forms."

What I believe you are saying (tell me if I'm wrong) is that the electrical charge hitting the ground made the "bacteria" make a copy of itself and you are defining that as life. As a chemist's son I don't fully agree with that. I believe that it takes several identifications to seperate death and life, including growth, adaptation, and a few other characteristics.

"The lightning catalyzed that change in the amino acid that makes it twist one protein around to make it naturally make copies of itself chemically."

Another reason I have problem with your statements is that even if these proteins continue to copy, where did the first "bacteria" come from?

"Say you have a dead fly, it has all of the organs it needs all of the cells and all the amino acids and most everything else. So how come that fly isn't alive. And if that fly is all of those things and still not alive then how can you say that a certain formula can create the building blocks of life that it will be alive?"

You say this is a completely different subject and that this is just a matter of disease of the organs. I am sorry for not explaining my analogy. What I meant by this statement is that (going back to the first bacteria), acording to the "Big Bang Theory," a mix of chemicals came together in the precise order and BOOM! there was a planet capable of supporting life with everything it needs and single cell organisms that reproduced. My problem with this is that even if all those chemicals came together in that precise order and created everything an organism needs, it still does not make it ALIVE. By alive I mean those characteristics I stated earlier.

Don't get me wrong in all this I realize you are a Christian just coming from a evolutionist background, but I am and never will be an evolutionist.

[Ed]

I'm taking a class on this topic, it's really interesting.

Turns out nobody has found any real transitional forms of critters, i mean an entire species from a TOOTH? I mean come on, just a tooth isn't enough to make a transitional form. I wish those scientists would find better things to do than making these weird evolutionary theorys.

Christian creationism beats evolution entirely!


Mop once said:
"I'm against evolution as well. Mankind from apes. ;D"

I'm thinking Mr. Darwin was about as smart as an ape evolution-wise.

[ApologeticChrist]

I also like debate, mostly just to get new points out in the air. Thinking is never a crime, and the more that you think, the more that you can back up your beliefs.

"What I believe you are saying (tell me if I'm wrong) is that the electrical charge hitting the ground made the "bacteria" make a copy of itself and you are defining that as life."

At the very simplest state, yes, I would say that is "life." Granted, it needs to consume and give off waste, but after that, I would say that it is a life form.

"As a chemist's son I don't fully agree with that. I believe that it takes several identifications to seperate death and life, including growth, adaptation, and a few other characteristics."

And I would be inclined to agree with you. Adaptation is really just being more able to cope with your environment better over generations, more commonly known as the process of evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, it's just a question of whether that's how we all came about. But yes, I see what you mean here.

"Another reason I have problem with your statements is that even if these proteins continue to copy, where did the first "bacteria" come from?"

Alright, you did point out a big hole in my explaination. I thought about it more and figured out the major steps I was missing. The protein level and it's duplication is kind of what DNA does. If you get that matching up with other amino acids and producing a copy of itself, or even a reverse copy. Some very simple organisms still use this single line of DNA to do their stuff. This process allowed the proteins to be created to make enzymes, cell membranes and other parts of the cell.

"What I meant by this statement is that (going back to the first bacteria), acording to the "Big Bang Theory," a mix of chemicals came together in the precise order and BOOM! there was a planet capable of supporting life with everything it needs and single cell organisms that reproduced. My problem with this is that even if all those chemicals came together in that precise order and created everything an organism needs, it still does not make it ALIVE. By alive I mean those characteristics I stated earlier."

Well, it really isn't a whole bunch of chemicals going together and boom. Instead it is more like you have millions of little balls of play-do. They are flying around and stick to one another occationally. Eventually, you get a bigish blob that randomly squished together, and has the right properties to make one just like it. It copies itself. You suddenly have a copying protien. Also, this whole process isn't done in an hour, but over hundreds of millions of years. This is more than one hundred million times as long as you have existed over the entire earth. This is not a hard concept for people to believe simply because random occtionally does some weird stuff when left alone.

Yeah, sorry, it's been a long time since my molecular biology days.

-R. S. of UC

[ApologeticChrist]

Of course Biology is interesting (in reference to the post made by Prime Minister Edward I), I spent nearly 14 years pursuing it as a possible profession. It is very interesting to see how God's creatures interact and fit into the environment He created for them and gave us stewardship over. We could be doing a better job of it, but that's a totally different debate point.

"Turns out nobody has found any real transitional forms of critters..."

I think that you are mis-informed in your class or your teacher did not mention this. There are many transitional skeletons for fish to amphibions, amphibions to reptiles, reptiles to mammels, fish to sharks, wolf like critters to whales, shrews to monkeys, monkeys to apes, apes to humans. There are many out there that have been discovered, and it's pretty gradual in it's display of evolution.

"...i mean an entire species from a TOOTH? I mean come on, just a tooth isn't enough to make a transitional form."

I believe that you are either refering to Iguanodon, discovered originally by a single tooth which was more than unique enough to catagorize it on it's own (it was a reptillian tooth, but the size of it indicated an animal about the size of a rino), or you are refering to Allosaurus, also discovered by a single tooth jutting from a jaw that came from no living animal. The tooth itself was about the size of a man's thumb and looked like a knife. No animal has teeth like that of that size. Both of those have many examples of skeletons to back them up now. Were you thinking of another animal perhaps?

"I wish those scientists would find better things to do than making these weird evolutionary theorys."

It isn't weird at all. If you look at what they are really saying, it makes sense... if you don't regard the Word of God as perfect and non-metaphorical in Genisis. These theories are often well founded, based on the evidence that the fossil record allows and from observations of current animals. Steven J. Gould is an especially impressive one who is still alive. Paul Soreno is another one that I have heard lecture before, and his views are more clear than mine. Trust me, evolutionism is not just a stupid thing that some weirdos came up with. For our weaker brothers and sisters, it seems pretty logical. And really, when God judges them, does it matter somehow in their acceptance of Christ if the world started with a little bacterium or a word?

"Christian creationism beats evolution entirely!"

If your belief is strong enough to accept it, yes. And only then.

"I'm thinking Mr. Darwin was about as smart as an ape evolution-wise."

Mr. Darwin very carefully published his views because people would kill him for his ideas. He was an intelligent man, and a Godly one who belonged to the church and regularly included a divine hand in his theories. He was not evil or stupid, just a man trying to make sense of the world the only way that he knew how.

Just something to chew on,

-R. S. of UC

[Armany]

I'm kinda new to these forums, but I do know a little bit about evolution from the books I've been reading. And I KNOW that evolutionary theory is based on wild speculation and hypothetical theory.
First off, I have to disagree with Apologetic Christ and agree w/ Prince Edward. To the best of my knowledge, no intermediate fossils have been found. There have even been erratic claims by such magazines as Natl. Geographic that intermediate fossils have been found, only to be disproved and found out to be fraudulent.

Now, on the evolutionary theory of life's origin, it is totally baseless. How do you get life from unliving matter? Stanley Miller supposedly did it in the 50's, but his experiments are now known to be inaccurate in depicting the supposed conditions of early Earth. Also, there could be no DNA or RNA to form the first organic material; it must be created by cells already in existence. On top of it all, the DNA has cellular instructions so specific that it could not possibly be formed by a "lucky" zap that somehow can work as many miracles as God!
The entire point of evolution is to find a way to live w/o God. However, Christians now have concrete proof for their views and can combat naturalism in any forum.

(I get all my info from my biology textbook and The Case For the Creator by Lee Strobel, a great read>)

[Armany]

"... a godly man." in reference to Darwin
Apologetic Christ, I must respectfully disagree w/ you again. Darwin promoted a theory that proposed taking God out of a job. The whole basis of evolution is to make life appear to have developed by itself, which is very illogical. Darwinists also adhere to the theory of a Big Bang, which alledgedly sprang forth out of nothing. Totally stupid, if you ask me. They then back up their statements w/ things like, "Well, we didn't think something could come out of nothing, but looking at the Big Bang, it sure did." They assume that evolution is correct, and therefore they begin making up things to fit w/ the theory. that's what's in our textbooks.

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Armany you're absolutely right. Have you read Defeating Darwinism? That is another great book.

[ApologeticChrist]

I am working on a responce. Please give me a bit.

-R. S. of UC

[Siko Michael]

I have simply two things to say about god

1. he IS the ISNESS of IS!

2. Imagination is a human sense so therefore whatever we imagine god to be or whatever we think he looks like he cannot be and he cannot look like.

I may be off subject but they are cool points.

[New Titania (TD)]

Chickenwing, I'm confused. What does that have to do with evolution???

[Siko Michael]

It doesnt have anything to do with evolution but it was a cool point i wanted to make!

Chickenwing Major

[ApologeticChrist]

I'm sorry this is so long, but I wanted to address every point.

I am surprised and a little frightened by how little people try to understand or give credit to the beliefs in others. In order to try to do anything right, you can't simply slander a belief and not bother to look up the other side. I'm blessed in this that the other side's views used to be my own for a fair majority of the time. I don't mean this in any way as an insult, but I really am bothered when I read writing like this, knowing that uneducated and bias “scientists” produce so much of it’s base. Not that there AREN'T intelligent Christian scientists, but many of them do not bother with such quibbling things as evolution.

But, I digress and start to sound belligerent and stupid for ranting.

"And I KNOW that evolutionary theory is based on wild speculation and hypothetical theory."

I'm very surprised you would say that. We actually know very little. Hypothetical, yes, as pretty much everything in this world is hypothetical. Even our knowledge of gravity and what holds atoms together is noticeably flawed and lacking. However, this theory is not so stupid as it would be made to seem. These aren't wild ideas that just get chucked into a science book. People have worked for years with many theories that don't work, chucking out the ones proved false and trying to keep the ones that work. This is in no way random and these theories are most definitely supported by the scientific evidence of the times, fossil, geological and otherwise.

"To the best of my knowledge, no intermediate fossils have been found. There have even been erratic claims by such magazines as Natl. Geographic that intermediate fossils have been found, only to be disproved and found out to be fraudulent."

Then I recommend you inform the people who have discovered all of the transition fossils on this condensed website. The author wrote it specifically to inform persons such as yourself that believe that there are no such transitions. It is well mapped out, and while the author is somewhat hostile to Creationism, he has done a fine job in indicating individual species transitions over time with different families of animals.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

“Now, on the evolutionary theory of life's origin, it is totally baseless. How do you get life from unliving matter?”<br>
The same way you reproduce any living thing. There is very little that makes something “alive” according to scientific terms. All you need is for something to be able to eat, make waste and reproduce. All living creatures have these characteristics in common and require them to be considered life. To consume and create waste is not that hard in reality, the main difficulty is in reproducing.

“Stanley Miller supposedly did it in the 50's, but his experiments are now known to be inaccurate in depicting the supposed conditions of early Earth.”<br>
Stanley Miller did not create life. I honestly don’t believe that his intention was to create life, but simply to replicate what they knew of the earth’s crust at the time that life supposedly happened and see what occurred. No life was produced, but there were complicated amino acids formed. THAT does not change.

“Also, there could be no DNA or RNA to form the first organic material; it must be created by cells already in existence.”<br>
Take this from someone who spent far too long doing work with his molecular biology teacher. You really can get simple DNA and RNA from dirt. And by that I mean just random minerals from asteroid dust. It isn’t so hard. After all, natural processes create diamonds, gigantic monoliths and very intricate patterns, sometimes by chance. It’s not impossible. What you have is the building blocks for life just literally sitting around. They are sitting around for 900 million years. With lightning striking the ground and providing the catalyst for chemical reaction. All the time. All over the earth. This is the best example I have ever heard of for describing the million monkeys on a million typewriters eventually getting all the works of Shakespeare. There is a chance that they will manage it, and according to the evolutionists, a monkey got it right.

“On top of it all, the DNA has cellular instructions so specific that it could not possibly be formed by a "lucky" zap that somehow can work as many miracles as God!”<br>
I would get into theological arguments about that, but that’s really not the point of this forum. This is one thing in one aspect of God’s immense range of power. The ability to create DNA is pretty pitiful in comparison to creating the universe, matter, energy, the laws of physics, etc. Regardless, you must understand that unless they worked just right, the DNA would not work. In those 900 million years, there would certainly have been billions or hundreds of billions of screw-ups. You only need to get it right ONCE however, and life has been created. Plus, we are talking about something lower than the common cold on how complicated it is. The DNA is certainly not the massive giant that it is today in our body systems. According to the National Weather service, lightning strikes the earth 100 times per second worldwide. That has about 8,640,000 times per day or 3153600000000000 times in one million years. And that’s just one million years, not 900 million. Assume only one-third hit land where there might be water. Assume only one percent of the remaining strikes hit water. Assume that only one percent of those bodies of water contain the components necessary to create life. Or even one in a thousand. Then take that the likelihood of a lightning strike nailing the perfect place in the water to create life being one in 100,000,000,000. Maybe I’ve gotten it off in places, and maybe I’m not right in places. However, that number is still makes it so that every million years, there are about 105 opportunities for life to be created somewhere in the world. There were 900 of those million years. This is why your argument doesn’t seem as powerful as it might on paper. The million monkeys on a million typewriters really CAN produce the works of Shakespeare.

[ApologeticChrist]

(continued)

“The entire point of evolution is to find a way to live w/o God.”<br>
I think you’ll find millions of Christians who find that very offensive to their beliefs. Many believe that God created and molded life as it evolved along its path. Many also believe that God created the Big Bang, the unexplainable element of Evolutionism. To them, God would not want to deceive them with fossils, but would only offer truth to them and only conflicting evidence that would pale in comparison of His Word. My family is among these people, however I am not. Evolutionism is not just in the atheist realm. If you consider Genesis to be a metaphor, then it does make sense. If you think logically, go through all the times that God used metaphor to describe what he would do. We have no wooden branch growing out of a crumpled house of Jesse that is in the Israeli desert. We have Jesus. Alexander did not split up his kingdom amongst a four horns on a goat’s head; he broke it up between four generals. God never gave people things they weren’t ready for. This is what the Evolutionist Christian is thinking.

“However, Christians now have concrete proof for their views and can combat naturalism in any forum.”<br>
I’m sorry, but you’ve proved nothing and our case is just as broken as the case for Evolutionism. There is no proof for either one that makes it impossible for other things to have happened. Neither can you rub out. To be so foolish to believe that you have totally been able to disprove Evolution as a possible method of creating life, you have to think that they might have done it some time in the past 50 years.

“Darwin promoted a theory that proposed taking God out of a job.”<br>
I don’t see that in any way. A God who creates the universe all at once and a God who creates the universe over a period of time (a day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day) doesn’t convince me that God is out of a job. Atheists are atheists, they aren’t going to believe in God at all, and honestly, evolution is not something that must be banished from your mind in order to be saved. It’s about as important as whether the earth is round.

Darwin however WAS a godly man. He made references to God in the Origin of Species and was not creating a system meant to exterminate God, but to propose an idea based on what he saw around him. He made special notes in his introduction to state that this was only a theory and had nothing against the church. It is widely accepted he also wrote this to avoid being killed by zealous followers of the church.

“The whole basis of evolution is to make life appear to have developed by itself, which is very illogical.”<br>
Or rather, believable and possible seeing the likelihood of it’s occurrence.

“Darwinists also adhere to the theory of a Big Bang, which alledgedly sprang forth out of nothing.”<br>
Not all Darwinian followers adhere to the Big Bang theory, which again has really no place in here other than as an example. The Big Bang and Evolutionism have next to nothing to do with one another. Not to mention, not all Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang as the event that created our universe. It’s just a theory after all and you have pointed out the major flaw. If all the matter came from the Big Bang, where did the Big Bang come from? But, like I said, it has next to nothing to do with this.

"Well, we didn't think something could come out of nothing, but looking at the Big Bang, it sure did.”<br>
If I ever meet a believer in the Big Bang who says that, I’ll cry. No self respecting person would ever say it, and if they do, they are certainly not ones you should be discussing the creation of the universe with.

“They assume that evolution is correct, and therefore they begin making up things to fit w/ the theory. that's what's in our textbooks.”<br>
You assume that Creationism is correct, and therefore you begin making up things to fit with your belief. That is what is in the dozens of publications written by Biblical fanatics who know nothing about evolution, fossils or the geological record. It works on occasion, such as the mitochondrial “Eve” gene, but it’s very rare. Be careful with what you say.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am NOT an Evolutionist. I believe that God made the world and everything in it in six days. However, the reason I so defend this is that I do not want people believing in things they have not seriously thought about, studied or understood. I want people to think, and when people think, I believe that God’s Word is the obvious conclusion for the amount of sense it makes.

-R. S. of UC

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Wow! Apparently I've missed a lot. I've been busy with the Constitution and stuff, but now I can get back to the point of Evolution.

"You assume that Creationism is correct, and therefore you begin making up things to fit with your belief."

First of all ApologeticChrist, of course since we KNOW that Creationism is correct we do add things to make it fit with our belief. Everyone does that. I don't care if you're an evolutionist or part of a cult everyone makes up things to make their belief sound better to them. You know why we do that? It's because all us Christians have is the Bible, all evolutionists have is theory and fossils, all cults have is pride... The next thing you have to have to truly believe in your belief or "religion" is FAITH. We all have faith that what we believe is really true. Then after we have the faith then we try to figure out ideas from (going back to Christians) the Bible. Let me point out that we are not God in case you haven't noticed. We don't know what he is thinking or what he has planned. So we trust that what we have read is true and then share our info with the world. For you to say that we assume that Creationism is correct and so we come up with things to base our belief on is totally correct. It's because it helps us with our faith. But for you to say that we completely made it up because it sounds good is wrong. We or at least most of us read the Bible, we know our faith so we put out our opinions. Is there anything wrong with that? You obviously love to share your opinions, why can't we?