Changes

:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (fundamentalism)|apple]].

:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (fundamentalism)|apple]].

:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.

:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.

::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Its not evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.

::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.

::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.

:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.