I mainly used that site for references. My only real concern was how old some of the sources were, but the quotes supplied were rarely out of context. The only thing I came to realise through reading these sources is that there are things taught as fact that aren't based on much, some of which that site did go through, just not in the detail of the books the information was from.
I'm still a little either way myself, but I personally believe that evolutionism isn't as rock hard as some make it out to be. The trouble as I see it, is a lot of the evidence that would show Evolutionism as likely, simply doesn't seem to exist whereas though Creationism can be hard to disprove entirely, some of it's details can seem presumptive depending on the Creationist (not uncommon for a Creationist individual can be discredited by looking at flaws in his work). I currently lean towards Creationism, but feel both have things that don't add up.
That is why Evolutionism really fails in my eyes. How could a process like that happen, even if it's just a chain without something to have set it off beforehand? I know that time technically doesn't exist and that my poor grey mass has no means to properly comprehend this, but how did all this matter sprout into existence to begin with?As for the Big Bang, there are more scientists these days that refuse to believe it just came from nowhere. One of the most accepted theories is that the Big Bang occurred from a previous reaction, and that the birth/destruction of the universe (as we know it) is all part of a large loop which continues to repeat itself. This is nearly impossible to test or prove, so more faith is required for this belief than a belief in a God.
You seem rather knowledgable, so I was wondering how you'd reply to this article:
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
It goes into why Evolution is highly unlikely (though not neccesarily impossible if I understand correctly).










Bookmarks