What Does Creationism Predict?

[PStryder 6]

What are some predictions we can make using the creationist hypothesis?

[Salsa 171]

That stuff would exist.

[gilbo12345 858]

Creationism predicts

 

- the universe had a beginning (before the BB atheists used to think this was absurd).

- life only coming from life (still stands no known evidence against it)

- from nothing nothing comes (established principle in philosophy of science)

- a logical universe

- an underlying set of mechanics governing the universe

- our minds are logical to comprehend the logicality of the universe

- self-identification of personality

- objective morality

- free will

- etc etc etc

[Bond007 46]

Yep i will add, no such thing as 'vestigal organs' or 'junk' dna, fossils buried everywhere from Noahs flood, zillions of symbiotic relationships in nature, animals bringing forth after their 'kind', similiar genetic traits between everyone on earth, and cant think of more atm...

[gilbo12345 858]

Yep i will add, no such thing as 'vestigal organs' or 'junk' dna, fossils buried everywhere from Noahs flood, zillions of symbiotic relationships in nature, animals bringing forth after their 'kind', similiar genetic traits between everyone on earth, and cant think of more atm...

 

I forgot about the "junk DNA" one, that is a great confirmed prediction of Creationism and a failed prediction of evolution.

 

In order for PStryder to understand (and to stop any subsequent attempts as mischaracterisation), I'll quickly run through it.

 

 

Evolutionists predicted that since traits are based on DNA that over the course of "evolution" some genes would be non-functional and thus be considered "junk" additionally this fit with their claimed formation of genes whereby there is an excess of genetic material and genes simply pop up from mutations.

 

A small percentage of the genome actually codes for proteins, and before the ENCODE project evolutionists considered the rest of the genome "junk" fitting in line with the above assumption that there is an excess of genetic material for evolution to work with in order for new traits to come about and old traits to become junk. Atheist evolutionists used to claim the presence of "junk" DNA was evidence for evolution, such as

 

HOWEVER, with the human genome project we found that we only had 10,000 -20,000 genes despite producing 100,000 proteins, you see the unseen assumption being made was a one protein per gene production form DNA. However the data didn't support that, it meant that there were multiple gene products for each gene, further research found that this "junk DNA" plays a crucial role in the regulation of protein products as well as the creation of different gene products from the same gene, (epigenetics), from what I read last year 80% of the supposed "junk" DNA has now been found to have function. This 80% was found by the ENCODE project and the papers from it admits it debunks the evolutionary predictions.

 

This contradicts what evolutionists predicted and affirmed as "fact".... Bob Enyart debated Eugenie Scott, and predicted the functionality of "junk" DNA on this you can find the info here

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Bob+Enyart+Junk+DNA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr

 

audio from 1998 when leading evolutionist Eugenie Scott tells Bob that genetic scientists were "over the hump" and affirmatively knew that the pseudogenes had no function and that such junk DNA was therefore evidence against the existence of a Designer. Hear the fundamentalist Bible teacher disagree with the degreed scientist, and guess who science has vindicated?

 

 

In 2009, Richard "World's Top Thinker" Dawkins rubbed Junk DNA

on the faces of his creationist critics. According to his

gospel "The Greatest Show on Earth" (pp 332-333):

 

“It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a

convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have

created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and

gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a

gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately

setting out to fool us.”

 

“Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the

greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome

might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes…

useful for. . . embarrassing creationists.”

 

 

What annoys me is that this is an example where evolutionary beliefs have stunted scientific progress since if we didn't have to adhere to the evolutionist "junk DNA" beliefs I am quite sure epigenetics would have been discovered sooner.

[Bonedigger 42]

I forgot about the "junk DNA" one, that is a great confirmed prediction of Creationism and a failed prediction of evolution.

 

In order for PStryder to understand (and to stop any subsequent attempts as mischaracterisation), I'll quickly run through it.

 

 

Evolutionists predicted that since traits are based on DNA that over the course of "evolution" some genes would be non-functional and thus be considered "junk" additionally this fit with their claimed formation of genes whereby there is an excess of genetic material and genes simply pop up from mutations.

 

A small percentage of the genome actually codes for proteins, and before the ENCODE project evolutionists considered the rest of the genome "junk" fitting in line with the above assumption that there is an excess of genetic material for evolution to work with in order for new traits to come about and old traits to become junk. Atheist evolutionists used to claim the presence of "junk" DNA was evidence for evolution, such as

 

HOWEVER, with the human genome project we found that we only had 10,000 -20,000 genes despite producing 100,000 proteins, you see the unseen assumption being made was a one protein per gene production form DNA. However the data didn't support that, it meant that there were multiple gene products for each gene, further research found that this "junk DNA" plays a crucial role in the regulation of protein products as well as the creation of different gene products from the same gene, (epigenetics), from what I read last year 80% of the supposed "junk" DNA has now been found to have function.

 

This contradicts what evolutionists predicted and affirmed as "fact".... Bob Enyart debated Eugenie Scott, and predicted the functionality of "junk" DNA on this you can find the info here

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Bob+Enyart+Junk+DNA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr

 

audio from 1998 when leading evolutionist Eugenie Scott tells Bob that genetic scientists were "over the hump" and affirmatively knew that the pseudogenes had no function and that such junk DNA was therefore evidence against the existence of a Designer. Hear the fundamentalist Bible teacher disagree with the degreed scientist, and guess who science has vindicated?

 

 

In 2009, Richard "World's Top Thinker" Dawkins rubbed Junk DNA

on the faces of his creationist critics. According to his

gospel "The Greatest Show on Earth" (pp 332-333):

 

“It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a

convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have

created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and

gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a

gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately

setting out to fool us.”

 

“Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the

greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome

might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes…

useful for. . . embarrassing creationists.”

 

 

What annoys me is that this is an example where evolutionary beliefs have stunted scientific progress since if we didn't have to adhere to the evolutionist "junk DNA" beliefs I am quite sure epigenetics would have been discovered sooner.

 

You can also read and download or listen to Bob Enyart's 2005/2012 update and review of the debate here at Real Science Radio.

[Bond007 46]

haha yeh some people on youtube have made compilation videos of Dawkins saying those things about junk DNA and then contrasted them to the new findings, semi funny...

[gilbo12345 858]

haha yeh some people on youtube have made compilation videos of Dawkins saying those things about junk DNA and then contrasted them to the new findings, semi funny...

 

Cool, I haven't seen them, probably go have a look now.

 

 

 

You can also read and download or listen to Bob Enyart's 2005/2012 update and review of the debate here at Real Science Radio.

 

Thanks Bonedigger.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Here is a great one

 

[Calypsis4 638]

Cool, I haven't seen them, probably go have a look now.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Bonedigger.

 

Gilbo, sorry about the treatment you got from PStryder but I'm glad you stood up to him despite that. I knew he was a gonner when his real feelings of hate and disgust for us began to come out.

 

Oh, well. I guess that goes with the territory.

 

Best wishes.

[gilbo12345 858]

Gilbo, sorry about the treatment you got from PStryder but I'm glad you stood up to him despite that. I knew he was a gonner when his real feelings of hate and disgust for us began to come out.

 

Oh, well. I guess that goes with the territory.

 

Best wishes.

 

Thanks Cal, don't stress I have thick skin. Plus when I see a silly mistake I do tend to make a joke about such, which probably doesn't help tempers.

 

I agree it was quite clear of his intentions, his first post here was making generalized claims about us not adhering to reality, despite the fact that he gave no examples of such and over time we were the ones who gave evidence to support our claims whereas he continually dodged giving his.

[Dig4gold 100]

Dr. Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, well before those magnetic fields were measured by spacecraft.

 

 

Prediction 2Decay and Helium Release (RATE)

 

 

Radiohalos in Sandstones

 

 

Cold Material near the Earth’s Core

 

 

Reversal of Earth’s Magnetic Field

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

[Dig4gold 100]

Acts 2:¹⁸ Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.
¹⁹ ‘And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
²⁰ ‘The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.

 

 

Please don't wait.

[yvonnew 0]

Author Daniel Friedmann also speaks on this topic. He is having a virtual book tour on during the month of Sept - October. He is available to discuss his 2 books that talk about the following:

 

The author’s first book, The Genesis One Code, demonstrates an alignment between the dates of key events pertaining to the development of the universe and the appearance of life on earth as described in Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, with those derived from scientific theory and observation. This book, The Broken Gift, follows and extends the scope of The Genesis One Code to include the appearance and early history of humans.

 

You can ask him questions via Facebook or leave comments. He loves answering questions. Information about the tour is here.

 

http://virtualbooktour-theyppublishing.blogspot.ca/p/unravelling-human-origins-mystery.html

 

http://virtualbooktour-theyppublishing.blogspot.ca/p/genesis-and-science-on-origins-of.html

 

Devotees to creationism and evolution will finally recognize common ground by which to resolve their long-held differences.

 

Whether you agree or disagree. Either way, you will be fascinated!

[greenandwhite 0]

I forgot about the "junk DNA" one, that is a great confirmed prediction of Creationism and a failed prediction of evolution.

 

This contradicts what evolutionists predicted and affirmed as "fact".... Bob Enyart debated Eugenie Scott, and predicted the functionality of "junk" DNA on this you can find the info here

 

audio from 1998 when leading evolutionist Eugenie Scott tells Bob that genetic scientists were "over the hump" and affirmatively knew that the pseudogenes had no function and that such junk DNA was therefore evidence against the existence of a Designer. Hear the fundamentalist Bible teacher disagree with the degreed scientist, and guess who science has vindicated?

 

On a creationist world view, couldn't one question the validity of Bob Enyart's prediction regarding 'junk DNA'? Why should one assume that all 'junk DNA' must have functionality on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis1? If God directly created Adam and Eve and we could sequence and analyse their genomes, it seems plausible that we would not find any 'junk DNA’; however, we of necessity, are forced to analyse human genomes in a post-fall world. The Bible doesn’t give many incontrovertible specifics regarding the direct effects the fall had on nature, but it seems reasonable to assume that the perfection of the initial human genome has not been preserved. As such, it seems to me that Mr. Enyart should have joined Eugenie Scott in affirming the presence of ‘junk DNA’. Proposing that 80% of ‘junk DNA’ is actually functional could in some ways weigh just as heavily against Mr. Enyart’s views as it supposedly does against the views of Eugenie Scott.

[greenandwhite 0]

Creationism predicts

 

- the universe had a beginning (before the BB atheists used to think this was absurd).

- life only coming from life (still stands no known evidence against it)

- from nothing nothing comes (established principle in philosophy of science)

- a logical universe

- an underlying set of mechanics governing the universe

- our minds are logical to comprehend the logicality of the universe

- self-identification of personality

- objective morality

- free will

- etc etc etc

I was wondering if you could offer some clarification regarding some of the predictions that you claim follow in a straightforward manner from the thesis of creationism:

First, you said that creationism predicts that ‘from nothing, nothing comes’, but I think it is telling that you went on to state that it is an ‘established principle in the philosophy of science’. Why is that principle any more intuitively obvious for a creationist than for a theistic evolutionist or even an atheist?

Second, isn’t the proposed logical nature of the universe more a necessary assumption that any world view must make rather than a prediction? Moreover, if one did consider it to be a prediction, how would one actually go about verifying it without simultaneously assuming the very thing one is attempting to verify?

Third, why would a creator be obligated to create creatures endowed with free will? God could have created creatures without free will, which makes free will somewhat suspect as a specific prediction of creationism.

[greenandwhite 0]

Yep i will add, no such thing as 'vestigal organs' or 'junk' dna, fossils buried everywhere from Noahs flood, zillions of symbiotic relationships in nature, animals bringing forth after their 'kind', similiar genetic traits between everyone on earth, and cant think of more atm...

I am assuming that by ‘similar genetic traits’ you are referring to the universal nature of the genetic code itself (the genetic material in all living things being constructed using from the same nucleotide bases: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine). Why would you assume that God would only utilize one genetic code in his creation? Judging by the wide variety of creatures that inhabit the earth it seems that God would be someone who loves variety, so why would you not expect that he would use multiple genetic codes as well? Additionally, multiple genetic codes could serve a useful purpose that an intelligent designer would be aware of; namely, the prevention of diseases that can travel between species.

[Ron 10]

I was wondering if you could offer some clarification regarding some of the predictions that you claim follow in a straightforward manner from the thesis of creationism:

First, you said that creationism predicts that ‘from nothing, nothing comes’, but I think it is telling that you went on to state that it is an ‘established principle in the philosophy of science’. Why is that principle any more intuitively obvious for a creationist than for a theistic evolutionist or even an atheist?

Second, isn’t the proposed logical nature of the universe more a necessary assumption that any world view must make rather than a prediction? Moreover, if one did consider it to be a prediction, how would one actually go about verifying it without simultaneously assuming the very thing one is attempting to verify?

Third, why would a creator be obligated to create creatures endowed with free will? God could have created creatures without free will, which makes free will somewhat suspect as a specific prediction of creationism.

This is a bit of odd logic in places, and common misunderstanding in others.

1- Creationism doesn't predict that ‘from nothing, nothing comes’; That (ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. Further, what Gilbo was talking was Creation (see Genesis 1), which IS NOT something from nothing, but rather "Something from God". 'ex nihilo nihil fit' (or 'From nothing, nothing comes') is a argument against materialistic atheism’s ‘origins’ presupposition.

 

2- The Creationists makes no more assumptions than does the theistic evolutionist, the atheist, the skeptic or the agnostic (etc...). By the way, is not the theistic evolutionist a creationists as well? Please see the definition for "Theistic".

 

3- Your third point was a little silly, it seems to me, because a "Creator" is not "obligated" to do anything other than His/his/it's will. And, as per the Christian theists belief, "Free Will" is not suspect because we ALL display it; therefore "It Is".

 

[Salsa 171]

Additionally, multiple genetic codes could serve a useful purpose that an intelligent designer would be aware of; namely, the prevention of diseases that can travel between species.

 

Hi greenandwhite, welcome to the forum.

 

Why would an intelligent designer create diseases in the first place?

 

(From a creationist point of view diseases were not created by God but are a part of the curse that entered the world due to sin. In that context God did not try to prevent disease. He did quite the opposite. He prevented mankind from eating from the tree of life, which would have healed him.)

[MarkForbes 167]

I am assuming that by ‘similar genetic traits’ you are referring to the universal nature of the genetic code itself (the genetic material in all living things being constructed using from the same nucleotide bases: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine). Why would you assume that God would only utilize one genetic code in his creation? Judging by the wide variety of creatures that inhabit the earth it seems that God would be someone who loves variety, so why would you not expect that he would use multiple genetic codes as well?

I've to revert that question: Why would one single universally understood genetic code be the outcome of an overall evolutionary process?

Additionally, multiple genetic codes could serve a useful purpose that an intelligent designer would be aware of; namely, the prevention of diseases that can travel between species.

That assumes several traits of that designer, which aren't spelled out, if you are discussing intelligent design. The existence of diseases aren't a counter-argument against intelligent design theories as well. What YEC/Creationist position is on that UpsallaDragby explained quite well. Disease, genetic deterioration = results of curse / Adams fall.

[greenandwhite 0]

This is a bit of odd logic in places, and common misunderstanding in others.

1- Creationism doesn't predict that ‘from nothing, nothing comes’; That (ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. Further, what Gilbo was talking was Creation (see Genesis 1), which IS NOT something from nothing, but rather "Something from God". 'ex nihilo nihil fit' (or 'From nothing, nothing comes') is a argument against materialistic atheism’s ‘origins’ presupposition.

 

2- The Creationists makes no more assumptions than does the theistic evolutionist, the atheist, the skeptic or the agnostic (etc...). By the way, is not the theistic evolutionist a creationists as well? Please see the definition for "Theistic".

 

3- Your third point was a little silly, it seems to me, because a "Creator" is not "obligated" to do anything other than His/his/it's will. And, as per the Christian theists belief, "Free Will" is not suspect because we ALL display it; therefore "It Is".

I don’t have any issues with anything you have said here. My contention is that if a list is entitled “creationism predicts…”, then items like ‘free will’, ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’, and ‘the logical nature of the universe’ don’t belong on that list. From what I can gather you don’t object to that sentiment, so that brings me to the topic of what a theistic evolutionist believes.

I do agree that as a theistic evolutionist I am also a creationist in the sense that I also believe that God exists and is ultimately responsible for what we see around us today. However, I think that the question of how the universe got to be the way it is could be accurately described by a book like Dawkin’s ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. I have no problem accepting what a scientist like Dawkins says about evolution; my problem comes when he presumes to make philosophical proclamations to the effect that evolutionary theory shows that God does not exist.

[greenandwhite 0]

Hi greenandwhite, welcome to the forum.

 

Why would an intelligent designer create diseases in the first place?

 

(From a creationist point of view diseases were not created by God but are a part of the curse that entered the world due to sin. In that context God did not try to prevent disease. He did quite the opposite. He prevented mankind from eating from the tree of life, which would have healed him.)

I could speculate, but I suppose the most straightforward answer is that ‘I don’t know’. At any rate, I don’t see that such a consideration bears any relevance to the point I was trying to make which is that a universal genetic code is not necessarily a ‘prediction’ of creationism. In addition to the fact that a creator could quite conceivably prefer multiple genetic codes, there could also be other design considerations involved as well (e.g. the presence or anticipation of disease).

Regarding your second point, just because God ‘did not try to prevent disease’ does not mean that he couldn’t create in such a way so as to limit the potential effects of disease.

[greenandwhite 0]

I've to revert that question: Why would one single universally understood genetic code be the outcome of an overall evolutionary process?

That assumes several traits of that designer, which aren't spelled out, if you are discussing intelligent design. The existence of diseases aren't a counter-argument against intelligent design theories as well. What YEC/Creationist position is on that UpsallaDragby explained quite well. Disease, genetic deterioration = results of curse / Adams fall.

A universal genetic code would be the most likely outcome of an evolutionary process. The emergence of a functional genetic code is an improbable event, so it stands to reason that the independent emergence of two unrelated genetic codes would be even more improbable. On an evolutionary point of view we are talking about two possible states of affairs that can be compared using probability metrics; the same cannot be said for the creation hypothesis – how would you assign probabilities to a creator’s preferences?

 

If I am correct in questioning the claim that a universal genetic code is a prediction of creationism, then the presence of a universal genetic code is neither evidence for nor against the design hypothesis. Incidentally, you stated above that one of the effects of Adam’s fall was ‘genetic deterioration’. So to rephrase my question from post #14: in Mr. Enyart’s debate against Eugenie Scott, do you think that he was justified in questioning the reality of ‘junk DNA’?

[MarkForbes 167]

A universal genetic code would be the most likely outcome of an evolutionary process. The emergence of a functional genetic code is an improbable event, so it stands to reason that the independent emergence of two unrelated genetic codes would be even more improbable. On an evolutionary point of view we are talking about two possible states of affairs that can be compared using probability metrics; the same cannot be said for the creation hypothesis – how would you assign probabilities to a creator’s preferences?

Improbable indeed. Mind you that Evolution works on random mutation and selection. So divergence in different directions has to be considered. If the genetic code is however the best of all solutions / programming languages, then there is no reason for a creator to come up with several weaker ones.

 

If I am correct in questioning the claim that a universal genetic code is a prediction of creationism, then the presence of a universal genetic code is neither evidence for nor against the design hypothesis. Incidentally, you stated above that one of the effects of Adam’s fall was ‘genetic deterioration’. So to rephrase my question from post #14: in Mr. Enyart’s debate against Eugenie Scott, do you think that he was justified in questioning the reality of ‘junk DNA’?

If the genetic code is indeed a biological programming language and the genome contains highly complex, functional information, then this would indeed be a prediction of design or creation hypothesis. I do not see Enyart, or any other Creationist, making the statement that there is absolutely no junk DNA. By definition mutations will lead junk DNA and that's not in dispute from the Creationist side.

[Ron 10]

 

This is a bit of odd logic in places, and common misunderstanding in others.

1- Creationism doesn't predict that ‘from nothing, nothing comes’; That (ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. Further, what Gilbo was talking was Creation (see Genesis 1), which IS NOT something from nothing, but rather "Something from God". 'ex nihilo nihil fit' (or 'From nothing, nothing comes') is a argument against materialistic atheism’s ‘origins’ presupposition.

 

2- The Creationists makes no more assumptions than does the theistic evolutionist, the atheist, the skeptic or the agnostic (etc...). By the way, is not the theistic evolutionist a creationists as well? Please see the definition for "Theistic".

 

3- Your third point was a little silly, it seems to me, because a "Creator" is not "obligated" to do anything other than His/his/it's will. And, as per the Christian theists belief, "Free Will" is not suspect because we ALL display it; therefore "It Is".

I don’t have any issues with anything you have said here. My contention is that if a list is entitled “creationism predicts…”, then items like ‘free will’, ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’, and ‘the logical nature of the universe’ don’t belong on that list. From what I can gather you don’t object to that sentiment, so that brings me to the topic of what a theistic evolutionist believes.

I do agree that as a theistic evolutionist I am also a creationist in the sense that I also believe that God exists and is ultimately responsible for what we see around us today. However, I think that the question of how the universe got to be the way it is could be accurately described by a book like Dawkin’s ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. I have no problem accepting what a scientist like Dawkins says about evolution; my problem comes when he presumes to make philosophical proclamations to the effect that evolutionary theory shows that God does not exist.

 

Thanks for the honest reply G&W, I usually run across TE's what forget that the "Theistic" stands for in their philosophical world view, or it’s an atheistic troll who is coming here under false pretenses. So it’s refreshing to talk to someone who is standing on their principles. By the way, I usually ask that question to flesh out the truth, because it doesn’t take long to trip up the imposter.

 

Although I disagree with your assertion concerning ‘free will’, ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’, and ‘the logical nature of the universe’ not being reconcilable with the predictive nature of our differing world-views, I understand (I believe) why you might think so. And that can be hashed out in further discussion, but I probably should do a little more back reading before I do that.

 

Having said that, anything an atheist like Dawkins promulgates concerning origins, are spoken more from ignorance (and a priori suppositions) than any theist (and I’m not talking strictly about Christian theists here) can, because a materialist (Dawkins for example) fails at the first test of having logical and scientific evidences and fact/proof to back up their origins hypotheses. In other words, there is absolutely no materialistic explanation for origins (ex nihilo nihil fit), life from non-life, intelligence from non- intelligence (etc…) that can stand the test of scientific and logical scrutiny! At least the theist has a logical explanation for a “Beginner” regardless of whether their philosophical world-view has backed the right God/god(s) (said tongue-in-cheek). The materialist has absolutely NOTHING to choose from! So they say things like “The universe JUST IS”!, or “The Steady State Theory”, or like Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein in “Expelled”, that beings from outer-space may have seeded the earth (which has many question begging connotations in-and-of itself), “Transpermia”, abiogenesis (etc..). The atheist then goes on blithely living their lives in ‘blind faith’ that they are the superior intellect, not realizing that they are far more religious that any theist. Although, I must admit that I have found a few atheist that concede that atheism is simply another religion on the world’s stage.

 

You and I will have our disagreements about macro-evolution, but I don’t think we’ll disagree much about atheism.

[JoshuaJacob 24]

Not too sure what creationism predicts but I know what the Bible predicted. The evidence fits with what we find, yet somehow we are the nonintellectual for believing in what God has told us by His inspired word.

 

Because We are now unraveling the mysteries of the visible and invisible, as Colossians 1:16 says, somehow it shows proof that there is no God. On the contrary.... well to Me anyway.