- Refrain from insulting and name-calling. It's completely acceptable to be passionate about your views, but expressing your passion in an angry and insulting manner is unnecessary. Like the Forum Rules say: If you become too angry, just take a break for a while to calm yourself.
- Argue logically. Stating your perspective in an irrational way is hardly conducive to proving your point, and it just adds confusion to the thread.
- Don't automatically dismiss an idea as foolish if you disagree with it. Logically reason through why you disagree with it in your mind, and then listen to arguments presented to you with an analytical mindset.
- Regardless of religion or viewpoint, I encourage anyone who wishes to present their perspective in this thread to do so.
With that, I'll begin by stating my perspective.
I'm a Christian and a Six-Day Creationist. I also believe in a young Earth (about 6000 years old according to calculations derived from genealogies in the Bible). In other words, I believe that the theory of evolution is false, and I believe that the Earth was created in six literal days according to the biblical account of Creation. Therefore, I will argue from that viewpoint.
I am going to respond to Zonoro's last comment from Nova's thread below:
Zonoro13 wrote:There is a scientific explanation for how the snake came to be. This explanation makes a lot of sense and has evidence for it. The same explanation works for humans.
If God can exist without being created, why can't the universe exist without being created by God? If there is a God who existed forever, why is there only one? Why is a single, omnipotent god a good explanation for the universe, when there are dozens of theories that make a lot more sense (like the Big Bang)?
I won't respond to that first part since it simply assumes that evolution is true without providing the scientific evidence that Zonoro speaks of. There's really no point to argue there. Regarding the second paragraph, I'll gladly answer those questions:
1) If you believe that the universe exists without being created, then you have to choose from one of 2 options. The first is that the universe has always existed. There are many problems with this. One such problem is that the universe is expanding. By now, it would have "unraveled". Entropy would have taken its full toll on the universe long ago if it has indeed existed for all eternity. So then, you are left with option 2, that being abiogenesis. There is a major flaw with this as well. To have abiogenesis occur, information has to come out of nothing. Simply by random chance, information would have had to have appeared at some point. This simply does not happen. Information has never been observed to appear by random chance, and science relies entirely on observable evidence.
2) God is omniscient, meaning that He knows everything. This means that He would know if there were other gods. He has stated in the Bible that all other gods are man-dreamed and are therefore false gods.
3) How does the Big Bang make more sense than God? I've already given my arguments against abiogenesis. Where are your arguments for it? Furthermore, I have a written record of the beginning of the universe in my possession. It is called the Creation account, and is able to be found in Genesis 1 of the Bible. Where is your record of the beginning of the universe? And where is your omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent witness who created the universe?