CREATION ACCOUNT AND EVOLUTION THEORY

I'm always impressed at the zeal with which "modernists" slam creation science as "non-science", and that it should never, ever, ever, be mentioned in the science curriculum, even as just a footnote that says something like "not everyone buys the evolution myth".  

Yet evolution theory STILL has little or no indisputable scientific evidence to show for itself, since all its major claims (including those declaring that entirely new species magically sprung from other species already in existence!) conveniently took place behind the mysterious cloud of time, with its millions and billions of years, and still haven't materialized in the form of non-debatable evidence (thus the term "Theory"). And this is a profound void, considering that evolution is supposedly based on natural, materialistic "scientific evidence."

Meanwhile, most of the contemporary scientific evidence that IS documented, in the form of existing fossil records, archeology, molecular biology, genetics research, and even probability studies, points emphatically to the creation account as the more scientifically credible of the two.

But we can't call it "science", because those of us who simply present it also happen to have faith in the God who made it all. And that disqualifies us. And it. God is in there somewhere. And the naturalistic science establishment cannot accept such evidence, even if it's sitting right there in plain daylight (created in Day 4, by the way). It's not about truth. Or even evidence. It's about their world view, and their need to preserve it.

As for the paltry body of actual "naturalistic" evidence for evolutionary origins, I suppose it's clear by now that Mr Darwin and his more open minded disciples would be, and in fact those still living are, extremely disappointed in the modern scientific evidence results for their theory, so far ... 

Scientific knowledge

Interesting facts I came across recently ...

Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer and mathematician (and atheist, by the way),  has calculated the odds of life forming by itself, randomly and unintelligently, by simply having the "right" ingredients bump into each other in the so-called "primordial soup", as 1 in 10^40,000 ... and that's assuming that all the basic ingredients are already in the soup.  That's 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. Forty thousand.

Pretty long odds. I can't even get my head around that number.

By way of comparison, there are a few calculations out there that estimate the number of atoms making up the observable universe (that is, counting stars and planets we believe are out there, in addition to earth), and they estimate it as 10⁸⁰, give or take a power here or there.  That's 10 with 80 zeros ... even that's a hard-to-handle number ...

Here's another comparison that puts it in better "human" terms, for me, anyway: