I'm always looking up weird shit on the Internet, and today I stumbled upon a religious site and started reading. Why do I torture myself? Good question, but you really have to try to understand every point of view before you can come to any kind of intelligent conclusions. The way I see it, what I believe is really irrelevant, because history has shown time after time that we really don't understand things the way we thought we did. A few hundred years from now people will look back and wonder how we could ever think some of the things we do. It's easy with hindsight; we do it all the time....

Anyway, this site I have been reading has some interesting arguments for creation...

Or think about the position of our planet. If Earth were only slightly closer to the sun, it would be too hot to support life. But if Earth were farther away from the sun, it would be too cold to support life.

Isn’t it a marvelous “coincidence” that our planet is just where it is in the solar system?

Isn't it obvious?!?! Why didn't I think of that?!?!?! Let's just totally disregard that there are at least EIGHT other spheroids circling the sun. (which is exactly what 'theologins' did before it was proved without a doubt they actually orbit the sun along with the Earth) Oh wait, they are there to confuse us....

Come to think of it, using this logic would point away from intelligent design. If it were intelligent design, and the Earth is exactly where it needs to be to support life because it was put there, then the other planets are meaningless and shouldn't be there!!

It’s the same with electrical force. Every tree, every blade of grass is made of atoms, which contain electrons and protons. The electron has an electrical charge that balances exactly the charge of the proton.

What would happen if they weren’t precisely balanced? If, say, the electron carried more charge than the proton, every atom in the universe would be negatively charged. Since like charges repel, the atoms would repel each other, and the universe would explode apart.

Hmm, this one is kinda funny. Here they are totally disregarding the fact that the stuff atoms are made of; protons, neutrons, and electrons are composed of even smaller particles, and logically speaking, if the charges were different, and 'order' were the order of the day, so to speak, then they would be made of different particles to bring order to the system. Not to mention the fact that this whole bit about protons and stuff are just a MODEL to explain the results we get from INDIRECT observations of effects. In other words, it's all still theory, and as scientists do different shit to matter to see what happens, they change the model to fit the observations. We have no direct evidence of anything on such a small scale, we just observe the effects and then guess. Electricity is still a theory. They THINK that it's electron movement that make electricity work the way it does, but nobody knows for sure, cause nobody has ever seen an electron moving. Hell, we can't even see atoms for that matter.

This one makes sense...

Behe uses a homey example of irreducible complexity: the mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled gradually, he points out. You cannot start with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a hammer, and so on. No, to even start catching mice, all the parts of the trap must be assembled from the outset. The mousetrap doesn’t work until all its parts are present and working together.

Behe conducted much of his work within the context of the individual cell, which was once thought to be a relatively crude or simple structure but now is understood to be vastly complex. Many structures within the living cell are like the mousetrap; they involve an entire system of interacting parts all working together. If one part were to evolve in isolation, the entire system of interacting parts would stop functioning; and since, according to Darwinism, natural selection preserves the forms that function better than their rivals, the nonfunctioning system would be eliminated by natural selection. Therefore, there is no possible Darwinian explanation of how irreducibly complex structures and systems came into existence.

“The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life,” Behe says, “has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as a result of simple natural laws.”

The only trouble I have with this is that it is assumed there are only two possibilities for our existence. The logic here is, if the theory of evolution is flawed, it is not fact, therefore intelligent design has to be the way it has always been. We have not even begun to crack the surface of all there is to know in the universe, and nobody suggests that both evolution and creation are flawed thought processes, and the true nature of things has yet to be discovered. I personally think it will be a very long time before mankind even comes close to a glimpse of the real truth. Some people I talk to get upset with me over this stance, because it is not a stance at all. They argue that I have to believe in something. I like Descartes' philosophy, "I think, therefore I am," but disagree that you can come to the conclusion of devine intervention from that. I don't understand why it's so imperitive to take a stance on the issue. It's interesting, but I don't think anyone has the kind of knowledge that would qualify one with the ability to know for sure what the real deal is.

I've said it before, I think most people are afraid of the unknown beyond death. They love life and don't want it to end, so they make up shit to make themselves feel better about it. The only problem with that is the fact that sometimes the things people believe keep them from truly living, which is why they seek answers in the first place.