My 'paper' is finally finished. Its the result of about 8 hours of research (possibly more but I haven't been keeping time, I just know I've been researching since I asked Marco to wait for a response, with breaks for social get togethers and stuff), and about 5 hours of writing. I just finished writing here at 11:30 pm and I started at about 6:00 pm, I believe.

However, I'm not going to post it until tomorrow. I want to thoroughly go over it for spelling errors and sentence-logic errors, as well as do a double check on the evidence.

It may or may not be too long for the forum. In Microsoft Word, its about 9 pages long in Times New Roman text at 12 point. Probably too long, but I can always split it up.

This should at least end (once and for all) the idea that creationists are crazier than bat crap, and that we know nothing of science and instead base our arguments off of fear (emotion). But who knows, people will rationalize anything.

I don't expect to end this discussion once and for with this 'paper', I simply intend to get people thinking in this thread, to cause more discussion if you will. I want people to consider options.

I believe in God, but I always consider the possibility that evolution (materialist evolution) is true and that I'm completely wrong. I always question the existence of God, its in my nature as a curious person to wonder if God really exists. That said, I'm not a fence sitter. I do question everything, even my own beliefs, but I still hold to those beliefs as long as I know there is evidence. I have truly solid reasons for not only believing in the existence of God, but of the true nature of his creation. Tomorrow, I will present what I know to be true.

However, the reason I'm posting this is because I want people to understand where I'm coming from so there are no pointless side-arguments made. Again, I know evolution is real. The same evolution you believe in. Where our beliefs differ is that I believe this evolution cannot cause enough of a change to bring about the wide variety of animals we see on earth. That this evolution is limited by God's creation, through genetics, to be unable to bring about this kind of change. Thus proving that, to an extent, animals were created in their present form. With the exception being speciation, which I elaborate on in my 'paper.'

Anyway...

I would think that the nanobes should have proved that we do not know as much about life as we think we do. Of course it doesn't rewrite evolution. Funny how the creationists bring up the fact that we as humans are not animals, or are somehow above all other creatures on the planet.

As for evolution, we are surrounded by a continuous flow of an ever changing world and universe. People speak as if we can measure a God's motivations as we can measure the aeons. The folly of human arrogance. Who is to say that a billion years is not a day to a God, or Goddess?

There was certainly people running around the globe long before 6000 years ago. Early people were nomadic and did not create permanent settlements for thousands of years. The was an early age of settlements that evolved into the biblical cities and civilisations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

I thought Lucy was over 5 million years old? Hominids. If they are not apes and not people, what are they? How do they fit into creationism?

Yes, I'm also curious how creationism would explain all the remains of human predecessors we've found.

The history argument: The earliest huge cities (f.i. Nippur in Sumer) are about 7000..7500 years old. Why hasn't man invented writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms in the 192500 years before?

Simple answer: They were too few. Writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms became only necessary after the population reached a certain density. The Aborigines inhabited Australia since ten thousands of years, but hadn't ever changed their way of living. They just didn't need any cities or writings.

But early man left us other artifacts, like stone tools, and even artwork:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

And sadly, no one of the 6000 years believers has yet answered my question how he would then explain just the night sky. With the bare eye we can see the Andromeda galaxy. Its light needed 2 million years to reach us...

Quote:

---

Simple answer: They were too few. Writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms became only necessary after the population reached a certain density. The Aborigines inhabited Australia since ten thousands of years, but hadn't ever changed their way of living. They just didn't need any cities or writings.

---

Let's see, reproduction over 194,000 years would be very very high.... where did all the children run off too? There must have been huge cities as far as the eye can see. What happened to it all, as there is no trace.

Quote:

---

Its light needed 2 million years to reach us...

---

How would you actually know it's light took 2 million years to reach us? After taking 2 million years, and using the speed of light, that galaxy would be aprox. 117559095133820000000 miles away. Wow...

Let's simplify things a bit:

Reproduction = Population
Population = Cities
Cities = Technology

Multiple this by 194,000 years, and you have a very large amount of popultion that is potentially very advanced. I was refuting the claim that there was very little popultion for the first 194,000 years. The only way this could be if there was no reproduction, no sexuality, ect. Then again, perhaps I'm missing something and evolution states that basic genitilia wasn't developed until 6-10 thousand years ago. In that case, the low population for 194,000 years would work out... sorta.

Quote:

---

Almost right. It's center is even 2.5 million light years away, or about 1.5x10^19 miles.

---

Yes, but my question hasn't been answered. Where do you come up with the galaxy being 2.5 million light years away? Was the number just pulled up out of a hat? After looking through the wikipedia link, it seems they have distances for galaxies well beyond even this one.