Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[verysincere]

Why do you believe in Jesus, but not his laws, a.k.a., the 10 commandments. Those are the laws of Moses, and if you don't follow those, your not a follower of Christ...

Read the Epistle to the Colossians.

 

[Adaephon]

And not for Christians?

Of course not.

Pretty sure those prohibitions were never removed from god's laws to humans...

That's ok, you missed it, then. The commands were only given to Jews anyways.

 

[CabVet]

That's ok, you missed it, then. The commands were only given to Jews anyways.

What? If that's the case, why not say that the entire old testament was only given to Jews then?

 

[Adaephon]

Why do you believe in Jesus, but not his laws, a.k.a., the 10 commandments. Those are the laws of Moses, and if you don't follow those, your not a follower of Christ...

What are you babbling about?

 

[Adaephon]

What?

Could you be more specific?

 

[CabVet]

Could you be more specific?

Edited to add this: If that's the case, why not say that the entire old testament was only given to Jews then?

 

[Adaephon]

Edited to add this: If that's the case, why not say that the entire old testament was only given to Jews then?

I don't know. I'm not a theologian. What I do know is in the New Testament God tells St. Peter that the old ritual dietary laws no longer apply.

The idea is generally all the old finicky laws no longer apply because they merely were a shadow of things to come.

 

[delaola]

I don't know. I'm not a theologian. What I do know is in the New Testament God tells St. Peter that the old ritual dietary laws no longer apply.

The idea is generally all the old finicky laws no longer apply because they merely were a shadow of things to come.

This isn't true when you look at the text where this idea is found.

You're referring to Acts 10:9-24, "9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along."

If you read this, you'll find that Peter was called by God to preach to the Gentiles. In the Jewish society, Jews were not allowed to associate themselves with Gentiles because they were considered "unclean". You can see the symbolism as God was not referring to unclean animals, but "unclean" people. As Christ once said, (paraphrased) He comes not to cleanse the righteous, but the sick[spiritually unclean].

God also says, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." In other words, if God has cleansed them, like he cleansed the Gentiles[spiritually unclean], do not treat them as such. This passage had nothing to do with dietary restrictions as you can see, but this is your choice to accept. God Bless

 

[OllieFranz]

This isn't true when you look at the text where this idea is found.

You're referring to Acts 10:9-24, "9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along."

If you read this, you'll find that Peter was called by God to preach to the Gentiles. In the Jewish society, Jews were not allowed to associate themselves with Gentiles because they were considered "unclean". You can see the symbolism as God was not referring to unclean animals, but "unclean" people. As Christ once said, (paraphrased) He comes not to cleanse the righteous, but the sick[spiritually unclean].

God also says, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." In other words, if God has cleansed them, like he cleansed the Gentiles[spiritually unclean], do not treat them as such. This passage had nothing to do with dietary restrictions as you can see, but this is your choice to accept. God Bless

Yes, the allegory is the primary lesson from that vision, but the literal advice is also true, but because God was declaring that Peter and anyone he brought to the Lord would no longer be under the Law of His Covenant with the Jews, but under the Grace of His New Covenant with those Redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

Most of Paul's letter to the church in Rome is explaining this fact. Especially chapter 14, where he speaks of treyf meat. If even surplus meat originally given to pagan priests to be used in pagan rituals is not sheqets, to one who is no longer under the Law of Moses, why would sirloin steak and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] roast continue to be?

And to be honest, if you were not born Jewish, and did not undergo full conversion to Judaism, you were never subject to the Holiness Code. The Rabbis never expected the righteous Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses. The moral laws that any God-seeking non-Jew is expected to follow are called the Law of Noah. Traditionally they are: 1)Promote justice and avoid 2) Idolatry, 3) murder, 4) theft, 5) sexual immorality, 6) blasphemy, and 7)animal cruelty*.

(*This last commandment is actually a lot more specific: "Don't eat meat from an animal that was flayed alive.")

Paul also tells us in his letter to the Church in Galacia that Peter understood the vision both ways and ate with his gentile converts (even though the meat was not butchered by a shochet, or inspected by a rabbi), until another group of Jewish Christians upbraided him, not only for his own "lapses" since he was born a Jew, but also for not commanding that the Gentiles he brought to Christ undergo full conversion to Judaism and the Law of Moses. Peter gave in to their demands This caused Paul to call Peter on it.

Acts, chapter 11 tells us of another time Peter was confronted by a group of "Judaizers," when he briefly returned to Jerusalem. This time he had the courage to defend his actions.

 

[Adaephon]

This isn't true when you look at the text where this idea is found.

You're referring to Acts 10:9-24, "9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along."

If you read this, you'll find that Peter was called by God to preach to the Gentiles. In the Jewish society, Jews were not allowed to associate themselves with Gentiles because they were considered "unclean". You can see the symbolism as God was not referring to unclean animals, but "unclean" people. As Christ once said, (paraphrased) He comes not to cleanse the righteous, but the sick[spiritually unclean].

God also says, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." In other words, if God has cleansed them, like he cleansed the Gentiles[spiritually unclean], do not treat them as such. This passage had nothing to do with dietary restrictions as you can see, but this is your choice to accept. God Bless

You realize the church throughout history has declared your belief unorthodox, right? Judaizing is literally the first of all heresies. St. John Chrysostom wrote a great series of homilies against it, Adversus Judaeos.

 

[TheReasoner]

So what? It was the religious leaders who had Christ executed.

Yep. Fanatics who were unable to admit to the possibility of having interpreted scripture wrong, or to that their thoughts, deeds and hearts were off in one way or another. You know, like you.

I missed that interview. Do you have a link?

It's called science. The study of all there is. Upon studying the universe nothing matches your story.Nothing at all. In fact, everything contradicts it. Despite that you still maintain that reality is wrong and your own subjective - and rare - interpretation is right.
What can we call that, KW, if not fanatical and more than slightly crazy.

God was tested also. He performed miracles. The fact is that no animal has ever been observed to evolve, and the miracles of God had witnesses.

False. Speciation has been observed many times. And as for the witnesses of Jesus' miracles, that's totally unrelated. You're presenting a false comparison here.

So long as my little group includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I'm abundantly comfortable in their presence.

I think your group gives the appearance of being you, your opinion and your own infallibility.

By your interpretation

Sure. Only thing is this interpretation is testable, it is falsifiable and it is sound. Yours is akin to hearing cars and concluding the sound is fairies riding unicorns.

False. The Bible does not teach evolution. It very clearly states that all living things were created in their mature state.

The bible is not a science book, and if it says so how come the vast majority of christians disagree with your interpretation? And how come your interpretation is not echoed in reality, but contradicted by it?

Truth is not subject to concensus.

True. But it is subject to what is. Not your opinion. As your opinion has been proven wrong any mature person would reject it and revise his or her position. That you do not puts you in a rather exclusive club of fanatics and conspiracy theorists.

Neurons don't rub. They have gaps between them which are filled with neurotransmitters. I took psychopathology too.

Well, that you took that literally is quite revealing. Perhaps not too strange you misintepret the bible so severely since you apparently take everything literally without pausing for thought.

Amazingly, nobody ever cites chapter and verse to prove this, while I can list verses to support my contention that the Bible is, in fact, the word of God.

No. You can cite your own interpretation by referring to verses out of context and without accounting for cultural and historical factors as well as your own bias interpreted to fit your a-priori conclusion. Despite the fact that

Your statement is a blatant lie. I always cite verses to suport my ositions, since my positions are determined by the knowledge that the vesrse are correct.

So did slavers. So did geocentrists. Flat earthers. Witch burners. The thing they have in common with you is that they don't open for the possibility that their interpretations were off. They did not employ their brains, and neither - it appears - do you. You may cite verses, but you can cite verses to your heart's content to support any arbitrary position. The litmus test lies within what fits reality. If you interpret the bible to say the earth is flat, which you CAN do, and easily too, you must either assume your interpretation of the bible is wrong - because we know from observation that the earth is NOT flat. OR you can assume that the bible is wrong. What you cannot do and maintain your integrity is assume that reality is wrong in order to justify your interpretation.
However, that's exactly what you do.We know from observation you're wrong. But you insist reality is a lie to help your own illusion survive.

Obcviously, you haven't read either my posts or the Bible, because you don't have a clue about which you speak.

Oh, I've read the bible. I worked in missions for much of my adult life, and am a missionary kid who's been involved with church and faith for my entire life in one way or another. I am hence quite familiar with the bible. I have also read your posts, and I can do nought but conclude as I have done; That your real target of worship appears to be yourself, not god. This is, as I have stated, a conclusion drawn from your refusal to admit to the possibility of error, your rejection of empirical evidence while instead lifting up your subjective interpretation as the ultimate truth, and of course your off-hand dismissal of the more widespread, consistent and common interpretations that have been around since before Christianity came about.
Occham's razor: As your interpretation is contradicted by reality, is not shared and has not been shared by the majority of christianity throughout it's existence I can only conclude you are wrong both about reality (that one is plain) and about christianity and the bible both.

You DO realize that you're lying profusely, right? Remember what was said about the Father of all lies? Whom are you serving?

Oh no. I am not lying. Not at all. But I do think you are severely deluded. That's what the evidence suggests after all.

Funny how most people who read the same book as you reach a completely different conclusion than you do. Funny how your interpretation also has a severe mismatch with reality as well. And topping that, it is very interesting how you opt to say observations and interpretations that fit observations are both wrong just to satisfy your own interpretation. Sounds like hubris and narcissism to me.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yep. Fanatics who were unable to admit to the possibility of having interpreted scripture wrong,

Fortunately, "The evening and the morning" leaves no need for interpretation. "Fifteen cubits above the mountain peaks" is also pretty pretty self explanitory. Amazingly, you who pretend the flood was local have apparently never looked at a map. There is no place in the region where water could ever get close to that high without sea level being equally as high because there is easy runoff to sea level. The only way science supports this is if you flat out lie about what is written or you flat out lie about science.

It's called science. The study of all there is.

There's your problem. You don't understand what science is. Science is the study of the PHYSICAL world around us. It can't study the supernatural. It can't study the past. It can only study the present and make assumptions. It has no consistent approved method of studying the paranormal. It also doesn't involve the study of God, and God most certainly "is."

Upon studying the universe nothing matches your story.Nothing at all.

That's your interpretation. Science tells us that matter is not eternal, so the universe as a whole is constantly degrading. Science tells us that matter/energy cannot be created, but the universe came from somewhere. Science THEORY cannot trump science LAW. Pretending that it did long ago is not science, but apologetics.

Despite that you still maintain that reality is wrong and your own subjective - and rare - interpretation is right.

Mindless drivel and blatant falsehoods. You may have noticed that I support my argument by Scriptures, which means I am re-stating what God has said. These aren't my words. You're arguing with God. You don't have a different interpretation, you simply say they are false. Here's what you cannot comprehend. God made the universe (at least our universe) in six days. We know this because God said so. Science cannot disprove this because science cannot study the past nor can science prove or disprove God. God could make another universe exactly like this one at any time if He wanted. He wouldn't have to use any other process than commanding it to happen.

False. Speciation has been observed many times.

Speciation is the adaptation of an organism to different surroundings. Evolutiion is the changing of an organism to a more advanced organism; klike when you erradiate fruit flies and they morph into house flies. The trouble is, all you ever have is messed up fruit flies. Evolution has been proven NOT to happen.

And as for the witnesses of Jesus' miracles, that's totally unrelated. You're presenting a false comparison here.

I realize this may be above your ability to comprehend, so let me say it this way. During the time when Jesus lived, He performed miracles which were witnessed and recorded by people. Evolution has no such witnesses. So when, using the scientific method you ask which has been observed, tha answer is that the actions of God have been observed, but evolution has not.

Yours is akin to hearing cars and concluding the sound is fairies riding unicorns.

Okay, from here on out I'll treat you like an idiot, since that seems to be your level of debating skills.

The bible is not a science book,

WOW! WHAT A REVELATION!!! Did you come up with that all by yourself?

And how come your interpretation is not echoed in reality, but contradicted by it?

Perhaps it's because you don't understand reality. Reality is the eternity in which our soul abides (sorry; lives). The phisical world is a temporary construct that will only last for a time.

But it is subject to what is. Not your opinion.

God's opinion. He wrote it. I just read it.

As your opinion has been proven wrong any mature person would reject it and revise his or her position.

Another lie. My grandfather was a mature person, as was my grandmother and my mother. They all believed in God and that the Bible was His word. I've met thousands of adults who feel the same way. We call ourselves "Christians" because we nelieve, like Christ did, that the Bible is the inpired word of God.

That you do not puts you in a rather exclusive club of fanatics and conspiracy theorists.

And it makes you one who lies and calls names, doesn't it? I've pointed out both in this response.

Well, that you took that literally is quite revealing.

Yes, it shows that I know things about science and biology that you don't. I know its laws and its limitations. I know that God exists and that His laws rules the universe, not the laws of science. I understand that none of the 333 miracles listed in the bible are scientifically possible, which is why they are miracles. That either proves that God has dominion over science, or it proves that the Bible is false. You make your own choices. As for me, the more I learn about science the more I revere God.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

During the time when Jesus lived, He performed miracles which were witnessed and recorded by people.

They may have been witnessed, they may not, but they weren't recorded for decades afterwards, and certainly not by eyewitnesses, which rather spoils your point.

Evolution has no such witnesses. So when, using the scientific method you ask which has been observed, tha answer is that the actions of God have been observed, but evolution has not.

And I don't know where you get the above idea from. Every single part of the above quote is wrong.


Just thought I'd butt in on those two particularly wild statements.

 

[TheReasoner]

Crazy conspiracy theorist [KW] splurges nonsense on the nature of science and finishes by telling scientist he doesn't know science.

Whatever. Have a nice life.

 

[KWCrazy]

No. You can cite your own interpretation by referring to verses out of context.

Again, your statement is a lie. I usually include the verse before and after the ones I cite, I use the complete verses, not fractions like some do, and I cite chapter and verse so that anyone can read it and draw their own conclusions. Why do you feel it neccessary to misrepresent what I post?

So did slavers. So did geocentrists. Flat earthers. Witch burners.

You forgot Hitler. When you demonize another's argument you're supposed to include Hitler. Good Christians always opposed slavery, though many people saw it as an economice necessity. Geocentrists were the scientists of their time. The Bible is not a science book. Witch burners acted out of hatred, fear and superstition, not out of faith. However, since you opened that door, let me remind you that evolution gave credence to the view that the Aryan race was the most evolved and thus the Master Race. Darwinists, then are responsible for the second world war and 25 million deaths. Following that, Cummunism killed 200 million people, all of which seemed to think they were better than the others. If you can blame some men's evil on the Bible which they were NOT following, then we can blame other men's evil on the thoery that they WERE following.

They did not employ their brains, and neither - it appears - do you.

How many neurons did you have to rub together to get that flame?

You may cite verses, but you can cite verses to your heart's content to support any arbitrary position.

Not true. You can't cite any Bible verses that support evolution, nor can you cite any verses supporting the nonsense that Adam evolved from a more simple primate.

The litmus test lies within what fits reality.

No, what matters is truth. "You can handle the truth!" Reality is "the sum total of all our perceptions." The truth is universal and unchanging.

If you interpret the bible to say the earth is flat, which you CAN do, and easily too, you must either assume your interpretation of the bible is wrong

The Bible never states that the earth is flat. It does say in Job that God hangs the earth on nothing, which is a reference to its position in space at a time when man had no such understanding.

However, that's exactly what you do.

Another lie. Do you know the difference between interpeting something and accepting it as written? What part of Exodus 20:11 escapes you?

Oh, I've read the bible. I worked in missions for much of my adult life, and am a missionary kid who's been involved with church and faith for my entire life in one way or another.

Really? Then you should be able to recite at least 20 verses which support evolution and state that nothing Genesis is correct. name them, please.

I am hence quite familiar with the bible.

So proving it should be easy. Now prove what you say through the Scriptures, or admit that you're lying.

I have also read your posts, and I can do nought but conclude as I have done; That your real target of worship appears to be yourself, not god.

You have comprehension issues. I defer to the word of God in my posts, not any interpretation whatever. "The evening and the morning" is pretty darn specific, I think.

....your off-hand dismissal of the more widespread, consistent and common interpretations that have been around since before Christianity came about.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. He ussured in the New Covenant. Jesus, the son of God, bore first hand witness to the first man and woman, whom He mentioned, to Noah and the flood, which he mentioned, to the writing of the Torah by Moses, which He witnessed, and to the fact that the Scriptures were the inerrant word of God. If people claim to be Christian, why do they say Jesus was lying? I don't put my faith in the word of man. People lie. People distort things. If you want the truth, then you read the Scriptures. Where man contradicts the Scriptures, man is wrong.

I can only conclude you are wrong both about reality (that one is plain) and about christianity and the bible both.

Okay, then one of us is lying. I've showed where what I believed is evidenced in the Scriptures. You, son of a missionary, should be able to quote the Bible verbatim. yet, you have yet to offer A SINGLE VERSE to validate the things you say. You bring in popular opinions, you talk about science that you don't understand, and you repeatedly say I take things out of context. PROVE IT!!! Show me IN THE SCRIPTURES where i am wrong, if you can. If not, you're the one misrepresenting the word of God. You're the one lying. You're the one with no connection to reality.

Funny how most people who read the same book as you reach a completely different conclusion than you do.

Funny how they can't base their conclusion in the words of the Book.
Put up or shut up. Show me the verses to support what you say or admit you're lying.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true. You can't cite any Bible verses that support evolution, nor can you cite any verses supporting the nonsense that Adam evolved from a more simple primate.

When will creationists realize that there is a reality that exists outside of the Bible? Why do they never ask what the evidence says?

 

[TheReasoner]

I won't convince you regardless, KW. You're a fundamentalist set in your ways to sufficient degree to deny reality itself because it fits better with your delusion.
You can read for example Origen (1st century). He basically said that he thought no-one would be dumb enough to read genesis or the flood story literally - that would rob either story of it's meaning. Augustin is another example, who said that when an interpretation conflicts with reality, the interpretation is wrong. NOT the universe.
Thing is you read the bible with your eyes. Your cultural perception. And other factors like upbringing, irrational fear of the world around you and more count towards your conclusion, too. You fail to realize it wasn't written by or for you. Most people realize that, and have no problem with reality. But for some reason you are too set in your ways. Even if I bothered to drop you a few links or even schedule appointments with theologians to talk with you, you'd find some way to wrest yourself free from rational thought and continue on as before. Angry, uninformed and un-christ-like. The problem is your foundation, it's way off. You insist that your interpretation is infallible. That it is perfect, and judge other interpretations by your own interpretation. No matter what I show you will change that. Not the conflict that arises between Genesis 1 and 2. when your way of reading is employed. Not other conflicts. I can show you how others read the bible - or someone else may. But I do not think, given the way you argue, that you'll change. Or stop calling me a liar either. I am not lying to you. I guess that's hard to understand. I'm an atheist after all, and atheists always lie, isn't that so? Just like whoever does something wrong - like condone slavery - is not a true christian, even though the bible condones it. Especially when read literally like you claim you do.

So no, I am not lying, mister. But I do not think you have the prerequisite self-insight to see that other perspectives exist. Or even that they might be valid. You deny empirical knowledge after all, so I should think as hard evidence goes in your 'rejected' bin rational thought or other perspectives go out the window even faster.

I think I'll add you to my ignore list actually, I've had it with your anger and hatred. Great witness, by the way. Awesome way to show the world who Jesus is.

 

[Frenchfrye]

Simple. Genesis was written 3,000 years ago. It was written under the cultural, social and technological contexts of 3,000 years ago. It does not apply today, much like prohibitions of certain types of food, or certain types of fabrics, or certain types of punishment don't either.

that doesn't even answer the question. How does your interpretation of genesis 1 argue that evolution agrees with the bible?

 

[KWCrazy]

Whatever. Have a nice life.

I shall. Have a nice afterlife.

 

[KWCrazy]

[/color]

When will creationists realize that there is a reality that exists outside of the Bible? Why do they never ask what the evidence says?

You miss the point. I was challenged by a person who identified himself as a devout Christian, son of a missionary, and an authority on the Bible. He accused me of misinterpreting the Bible, so I challenged him to prove it. My contention has never been that the Bible is a scientific text, nor have I insinuated that creationism is a scientific theory. The physical world and the spiritual world coexist without being codependant. There are scientific issues with evolution, as with all theories. However, science is limited to the physical world. It cannot prove or disprove the spiritual world because such things are not reliably testable. Science can tell us much about the world around us. However, since it cannot study the past, only make assumptions based on the evidence. It cannot invalidate or support creation. It all comes down to faith, which was as it was always intended.