P.S. No, it was pretty bad. Nice try though.

The “flimsy” argument for creationism is actually quite robust, as long as you look deeply into the topic. For example, it is a fundamental belief of creationism that God has not only existed forever, but is also not a created being. Before you go to tell me that it is illogical to base your entire belief off of the presumption that the creator of the universe is all powerful and eternal, let me ask you, how long had the mass from the big bang existed? Better yet, where did that matter come from? If you ask then how an all powerful being was able to create the universe, then wouldn’t that be an answer to your own question? An all-powerful-being. I cannot stress that more.

Now before attack the ethics of Christianity, let me remind you that this argument is on creationism vs. evolution. Creationism is not only from Christianity, so I will merely ask you to please refrain from any rude messages about the religion.

My next argument is if there are indeed transitional organisms, then if their minute changes are too hard to detect or to detect easily, then isn’t that the same as believing in a creator who designed each being? It takes faith to believe in both theories. On the account of dinosaurs, I would like to point you Genesis 11: 1-8. In it, it is mentioned that all people were in one area, but were eventually separated by God. Doesn’t this sound like Pangaea? Now about dinosaurs, it would be possible that they couldn’t adapt to the new climate and died out.

Now to address the stupidity of Deafboy’s comment, if he actually knows anything about Christianity in detail, he will know that Jesus was resurrected into heaven…

I will not say I have all of the answers, since I don’t, and I will not say that my answers are necessarily correct, since there is probably an inaccuracy at some point. All in all, these are my arguments, and please feel free to comment on this, as long as it is a meaningful counter argument, not another biased response.

P.S. Not a bad argument for a 15 year old, huh?

No one has deliberately forgotten your truths. They came to find that your book was quite mistaken about a great many things, and so disregard it for advice or authority on any matter. For instance: your book says everything was created in 7 days. You can interpret that as a metaphor, but then wouldn’t the whole thing be an allegory? And on whose authority does one distinguish fact from metaphor? Therefore it’s not an authority on observe reality. Our eyes and ears are the greatest authority of distinguishing the state of the universe, and they can ascertain the origins of the cosmos; let alone ourselves. With the help of the technologies that science has provided. Such as the device you’re reading this on. Which is not just an entertainment box for Bible quotes and porn. Tools are only as useful as their operator.

Another thing about your book and your God is that, whatever good feelings they give you, they are NOT omnipotent or divine authority, regardless of your opinion. If that were the case, they would be revealed in a more corporeal way for those that need such a corporeal revelation. Therefore, regardless of your beliefs, it doesn’t change the fact that we have observed the evidence of evolution among other theories.

I feel at this point it is important for me to define the word theory as used in science. It is a guess, you are correct in that assumption. Though it is a complex, educated guess with many interoperable parts leading to a final conclusion. One must test every part of a theory so that they know the whole is correct. Even if a piece of a theory is wrong, it doesn’t, necessarily, mean the entire theory is. It may just need adjustment in order to comply with observations. Or it could be garbage. That’s what the scientific method does: it weeds out garbage, in essence. You ought to refer to Richard Feynman on that topic. The misconception of science is that scientists, like theists, just believe whatever is thrown at them. No, scientists are skeptical of literally everything. Else, they are not scientists at all. We require evidence or the matter is either untrue or inconsequential. Christians will accept anything as long as a guy that purports to know what God was trying to say in his 2000 year old book tells them what to believe it says. Completely disregarding reality. Even some of the realities of what that book says.

There may come a day when science finds the theory of evolution insufficient to describe the processes involved in the emergence of life on earth and may have to adapt it to new understandings of reality. If science is righteous, and it is, superstition will never be the replacement. An extension of the current theory will because that is the reality of space-time within our bubble called earth. Whether you like it or not, evolution is a fact. The understanding of the process is a theory.

“proof” against the theory is usually comprised of holes (arguments from ignorance), or mechanisms that have been discarded in favor of others that have stronger backing due to better evidence. i am sorry you found this remotely convincing.

It has certainly put me back on the fence of not knowing the mechanism for the origin of life, however you weaken your position by just a small bit of a poor logic. Even if all the proof against Darwinist evolution is true, you can’t use that to prove another theory. If another theory is true, it must stand on its own, not be fed by the death of another theory (unless there is absolute certainty that there are only 2 theories, which is not the case).

Then there’s this: “the earth was formed out of water and by water” “Isn’t that so true?”
No… why would it be? Is that supposed to be self-evident somehow?
You might as well have (alternatively) said “The universe was made out of unicorn sparkles, that’s why things are shiny. Isn’t that true?”.
You’re disproving 1 theory only to place something that sounds even more ridiculous in its place. If you can’t even accept that then you’re not going to gain much ground with the good research you’ve done.

It never started. It is a fact of life, as long as life has been here. Sometimes, when an organism reproduces, there is an error in the genetic structure of the child. This can be small, or large, or completely cosmetic, as many human mutations are. If the gene is carried on, and becomes more successful than other members of the species, it can eventually usurp or diverge from the origional species. This way, a creature can recieve a mutation that helps it, which will allow it to carry this gene onward through the generations, adapting the species better and better to its environment. If the gene hurts the abilities of it’s organism, it will be less successful and naturally be cut out of the gene pool over time.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Who knows.
Not me, and certainly not you.