For intrest sake, scientists did discover dinosaur remains that still contained cells that were still alive. It's hard to believe that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.

I am a Christian, I do believe in the creation account of the Bible. If you dont want to believe in God, you will look at this world through another set of glasses.  

what are the flaws with your argument? oh let me count them.

1 Natural selection with flies and other animals, thus giving the theory of evolution the necessary backbone.

2 you often assume that just because the bible says something means it is correct, and this often gives an annoying reaction. (ex. the bible says "in the beggining god created the heavens and the earth," so only god could have done so.

3 You state that it was miraculous that moses knew about blood and such. firstly blood had been rather pointedly discovered blood and bleeding. however for some reason christanity decided to contiune this.

4 if christanity is so nicely correct, then please explain the medevil ages. a wonderful time when the CHURCH (and the christian one at that) thought that destroying science, torturing scientists, waging war against the popes political enemies, waging war against other religions, waging war against kings the pope didn't like, and torturing people until they admitted to crimes they didn't commit.

your atheist friend

That's what I'v been thinking this whole time. Why would the begining be taught as a "fact" when no one can recreate it? And thus prove it?

 I hate to say that because I belive with my whoe heart that God made the universe and he made me. And so saying that make me feel a little like a sell out.... I don't quite have that on figured out. But I do know that science isn't infallible.

In addition, Creationism, unlike Evolution and The Big Band Theory, do not follow scientific method, from which all science is derived. Why should something unscientific be taught as science. Scientific method, as you should know from your science classes, is a process by which scientific conclusions are made, after observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis, draw a conclusion, and test that conclusion. Unlike anything else in the known universe, you cannot test god. There is no way to repeat results like any other experiments. You can breed and re-breed plants ad-constant, witnessing the effects in genetic diversity. You cannot say "hey god, make some stuff again and do it while we record it, k?". Could you imagine if we answered every problem that we didn't have an answer to with "god did it" instead of "hey, I don't know, let's try to figure it out, even if it remains a mystery for thousands of years or we may never know"? Forget geology, "Why's the mountain the way it is... and why are there so many earthquakes?" "Oh, don't worry, god did it." No testing. That is the fundamental problem. Creationism, or rather, Intelligent Design, completely skips this step in scientific method. It is not, nor will it ever be, science.

I'm not going to even bother with your supposed uncontradictory scriptures and so-called scientific holy book. You began the discussion discussing science, concerning the errors of evolution and the Big Bang, while discussing the evidence for Creationism. I would pull up contradictory scripture and the unscientific issues with the Bible(such as, Noah's Ark, as my conscience compels me into hypocrisy to at least acknowledge this one), but this is not a theological and literary debate. Creationism and Intelligent Design are based on the concept that a being created the universe, which was the topic on the stance of Creationism. Christianity, being a different subject altogether, as Creationism allows for deism, other forms of theism, and unknown variable deities.

That being said, I move on to the First Amendment. Yes, men can worship and preach whatever they want. However, the government cannot. The government was specifically designed to remain neutral on the issue, which is only fair, as it is governed and payed for by those of all beliefs. Many do argue that "under god" and "in god we trust" is unconstitutional. The the state, separated from the church, should not be endorsing it's teachings upon the masses, especially when an overwhelming majority of experts denounce the stance itself, insomuch as creating a second-class citizenship for those who are not followers. Did atheists need the first George Bush, our president, to represent us as a country, telling us that we are not considered citizens in his eyes? No. Such acts and others like this are entirely unjust. The founding fathers understood this. As Thomas Jefferson stated: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." It is also why, though creationists are so quick to point out that these liberties are granted by a "Creator", that they failed to read the part of the declaration that declares that governments are instituted among men and derive their power, not from god or gods, but from the consent of the governed. They also fail to point out that the founding fathers associated the "laws of nature" and "nature's god" as equivalents, also entitling us to these rights.

In conclusion, there is absolutely no practical or ethical reason to teach creationism, as science no less, in public schools.

Misconception 1:  There would be no monkeys left around if man evolved from monkeys. 

This is a misconception for the simple reason that it ignores the principle of evolution known as common ancestry. Common ancestry occurs when a single species evolves into two or multiple species, because of different mutations and different environments, due to either environmental change or migration. In the human case, we share a common ancestor with modern monkeys. Monkeys today are not the same as they were millions and even thousands of years ago. They are just as evolved as us, they have simply taken a different evolutionary path. Human beings did not come from the modern monkey. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, including the genetic structure of life forms and fossil records for starters.

Misconception 2:  "Something from nothing".

This is not what the Big Bang Theory proposes. The Big Bang Theory, as it states as a scientific theory and as it is taught, is the explanation of how the universe as we know it came to be from a extremely dense and hot primordial state, which expanded and continues to expand to this day. The theory does NOT discuss where this substance came from, nor how it began, merely the results. Attacking the theory for anything beyond this is irrelevant, as it does not argue against the actual theory itself. There is plenty of evidence for this theory as well. One example is that scientists continue to witness the expansion of the universe to this day.

Misconception 3:  "Design requires a designer" and the assumption that if god does not exist, then everything is left to chance.

By first stating "design" or "creation" before "designer" or "creator" the assumption that a being is responsible has already been assumed. In that, the premise and conclusion become inter-dependent of one another, whereas the only part of logic that is dependent is the other has always been the conclusion to it's premises. In this, you have committed to a formal logic fallacy, usually refereed to as circular logic. 

There is no design, rather, there is merely a perception of design by the human being. Really, thinking about it all, its a arrogant way of thinking. "The universe is so perfectly in tune with me, someone must have made it for me." In reality, its the other way around. We humans exist because the conditions were met, the conditions were not put in place because it was required we existed.

We live in a world that is dictated by variables, of which our existence is comprised of. When the exact same variables interact with each other in the exact same way, repeatedly, the response will be exactly the same. Any mathematician can tell you this. Humans coming to be, because the exact conditions for their existence were met, is no more surprising than that a cliff side breaks after the exact amount of decay from a river occurs, based on the laws of physics of the situation and chemistry of the water and cliff.

Dear sailerc,

I can understand that it is hard for an atheist to make sense of the belief that God exists but you still can't prove the belief wrong. For me it is hard to believe that evolution exists. I can believe in it in the context that things keep changing but I can't believe that apes and humans came from the same ancestor. But even if I believe in the theory I still think that there is some kind of entity that has power over everything and that made humans and apes have common ancestors. Haven't you noticed how systematic the universe is. Haven't you noticed that everything moves according to set laws. Consider the Earth for example. If it had been any closer or further away from the Sun we wouldn't have been able to live on Earth. Do you still think all this is coincidence. There are many other examples found in nature that prove to a lot of people that there must be some kind of entity which is controlling everything. For a lot of people including me, that entity is called God. And you said that magic doesn't exist. Black magic and white magic do exist in the world. However people who know how to perform it, don't do it openly. Black magic is magic which brings about bad things. White magic is magic used to bring about good things. As per my religion, which is Islam, both forms of magic are forbidden. White magic is forbidden because it helps you get things easily which otherwise you would have had to work hard for. You don't realise their importance and you don't appreciate the things you get easily a lot. That is why hard work and patience are encouraged a lot in my religion and white magic is also therefore forbidden. Although sometimes I do agree that what is called magic is only a deception (magic tricks). If you don't believe me that magic exists then search on the internet. If you still don't believe me then it doesn't matter. If you have any questions then feel free to ask me.

In response to your first statement:

Try to imagine that there is a supreme being (mind you, no one has ever actually encountered this being DIRECTLY [not just the supposed effects of it] and had it be taken down as historically accurate) who is all-powerful, and this one being had the power to create a billion solar systems and an ever-expanding universe, and has power over every single thing on Earth, but still allows war and hunger to go on, even though it's all "for the better good"...

Now, which is more unreasonable?

Are we seriously still stuck in the time before the European Enlightenment? I thought we'd moved forward by now and left ridiculous notions behind--unless, of course, we still think that the Earth is flat...

well, i don't know any thing about the Book of Mormon, but i probably can explain the bigamy thing. if you find the verse for me i can look into it.

by "toward the setting sun", doesnt that just mean the general direction that the sun sets??? which would be west? how does this verse have anything to do with the Bible saying the earth is the center of the universe?

haha yes i agree. see, i wrote this paper last year for school and when i went through and corrected some stuff i guess i missed that.

and yes, that is a very good point :) though some believe otherwise

you've made quite a few good points and you are pretty convincing. i just want to note that (according to the theory of evolution) humans came from apes and not monkeys as you've said a few times in your article. monkeys and apes aren't quite the same.

actually i think that creationism isn't taught in schools is because it's ingrained into our societies' beliefs anyway.