As I have said before, the study of origins is more about philosophy than anything else.

How do we know we exist? Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." According to him our ability to reflect proves that we exist. That starts to make things interesting. How can we really define what we know and don't know? How do we know that we are awake and not dreaming? As I stated before, the study of origins is the real life X-Files.

If we believe a rock exists than we treat it as evidence. What about the Bible? Is the Bible evidence? If we believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God we then have evidence of divine origin. Oh, but there is that word "believe". Is there a difference between believing a rock exists and believing the Bible is the Word of God? Most certainly there is. Yet even when we accept the rock exists and that it is evidence, we must make certain unprovable assumptions about it as we examine it as evidence. It essence, we exercise a certain amount of faith in these unprovable assumptions and we must if we are to gain any knowledge from the rock. Likewise those that embrace the Bible as the Word of God also exercise faith in unprovable assumptions.

Thus I can claim I know what the Bible (evidence) says as certainly as a natural scientist can say he or she knows what a rock (evidence) says.

The un-knowable then becomes where did the Creator come from? mel

There may be no "evidence" that you can "prove" but there are certainly alot of things that Science has no answere for and "miraculous" things in nature that have no "explanation" and that "probability" nor "millions of years" could create.

Personally, it takes way more faith to be believe that everything got here by chance than to believe that someone far wiser than any human or any human scientific evidence, created it.

Evolution can't be completely proved...there is no one alive here and now that saw the world evolve and there is no way you can completely prove creation for the same reason. But it is easier to trust a God who loves us than to trust in "chance".

There is ample evidence of incredible thought that has been put into every cell of every living being.

Of course but that is no greater question than what evolution offers. With evolution we must believe in eternal matter. Where did that eternal matter come from to make the original elements which eventually exploded and created the universe?

Evolution's unanswered question: The origin of eternal matter.

Religion's unanswered question: The origin of God.

Why do you think it's necessary for the Creator to have "come from" somewhere or to have had an origin?

Interestingly, the Mormons have tried to deal with your question. They say that God the Father was once a baby and that He became the God of our universe by obeying the laws of His own God. They go on to teach that if we obey the laws of God (excepting the Sabbath and a few others), we men will become as God is now.

I don't see any of that as a necessity. I believe it contradicts everything the Bible teaches about God.

Absolutely. Science has never claimed to have all the answers. In fact, I think it's safe to say that what we know is a lot less than what we don't know.

But there are no "miraculous" things in nature. There are amazing, beautiful, and awesome things, and we don't know everything about them. And maybe sometimes what we don't know is frightening (diseases, perhaps). But every day, we learn a bit more about the world around us. Every day, the picture becomes just a tad bit sharper.

Whether or not the universe got here by chance or not, it's here all the same.

Evolution is not the study of origins.

It is important in any exchange of ideas that the participants use and understand the same language. The word "evolution" in purely scientific circulars normally only refers to biology. However when discussing origins with creationists the term "evolution" normally refers to the origins of the universe and life without the inclusion of the Supernatural.

Evolution is still not the study of origins.

I have met people that refuse to call homosexuals gay. They will stomp their feet and pound their fists stating that there is nothing gay about homosexuality and they will never call homosexuals gay. It seems a bit silly to me. If homosexuals want to call themselves gay I don't have a problem with that. I know the word gay actually means happy but I am not going to go to war over it or even correct someonelse's use of the word.

So it is with the word "evolution". So many creationists refer to the secular belief in origins as evolution it seems a bit silly to me to try to go to war over that. The fact is, and there is no changing it, that most creationists refer to the study of the origins of the universe and life, without the inclusion of the Supernatural, as evolution. Those that wish to participate in a discussion with those creationists need to recognize that and incorporate it into their vocabulary.