Evolution or Creation Using Current Scientific Evidence Part 1

Again in my Ida Evolution post, I keep getting attacked by the Atheist who do not agree with me. Apparently they have no arguments but attacks. The last person said that he doesn't have respect for me because I said Isaac Newton was a Creationist. The fact is that the theory of Evolution existed before Darwin and my point is that Isaac Newton was a scientist and believed in God. However, I also continously mention that there are many scientists today that reject the theory of evolution. It seems that many Atheist are unable to analyze the facts to logically debate the subject intelligently so they start attacking me.

The fact is that many people have been brainwashed by the theory of evolution quoting information without every analyzing the facts. Even when I give a counter argument, most evolutionist (that aren't scientists) ignore what I said and continue with their nonfactual arguments. I am going to now present to you a look at the evidence for evolution written and compiled by my brother Andy Dias.

I would encourage you to analyze this information intelligently and hold your comments to the facts and not your feelings. It seems to me that Evolutionist are basing their opinion on how they feel, and not the actual scientific evidence.

What is the debate:

Evolution	Intelligent Design+Young/Earth/Cataclysm
Is the paradigm of evolution a solid explanation for the origin of natural phenomena?	Is there evidence that nature is so fine-tuned that a designer must be recognized? Is there evidence for a “young” earth whose surface was completely eroded in a cataclysmic flood?

Pre Notes:
The Paradigm of Evolution must be distinguished from the theory of evolution. The Paradigm of Evolution goes well beyond the so called origin of the species and attempts to explain the existence of nature. It should be stated that Intelligent Design and Young Earth/Cataclysm theories are not the same. The Intelligent Design (ID) community simply holds that the complexity of nature implies or even requires design. The term Creator is seldom used by these scientists in their presentations due, in part, to the bias of the Evolution crowd against theistic arguments. On the other hand, scientists who hold to a Young Earth/Cataclysm model would embrace much of what the ID community holds, but they would not avoid the use of the term Creator. They further hold that the earth is relatively young (some would say as young as five to six thousand years since it was created) and that there was a cataclysmic flood early in the history of the world. For simplicity, I have combined these two theories taking the more extreme position that the universe was both designed and that the earth is young having suffered a great and universal flood.

The references in these arguments are not fully documented. In many cases they are out of date, but the arguments still hold. In truth, the more that man learns about the complexity of nature, the less likely evolution appears.

Go To Part 2