Creationist questions from a creationist

Hello and thanx for reading and if possible answering.I can't believe in evolution for there are so many problems that arise when I dig a little deeper. But I have also many questions regarding creation, here is one :God created a perfect world, where every creature lived in peace, they only ate fruits and vegetables it seems. There never were preys or predators. Then why do most of the present animals have dangerous/poisonous features/organs and attitude. Even after the fall how did they gain those. I suppose that snakes didn't have poison in them, but where does it come from.Was it plan by God?thanx for answering, I hope you get what I meant.

thank you for responding!As a kid I always believed evolution was "stupid" (don't want to offend anyone) though I was fond of science, I never questioned the fact we had been created. Here is one of the argument I told myself considering evolution (and from what I had been taught) :-I still see fishes, apes so why don't they still evolve?
-Why are we the only very inteligent "animals" on earth? we can make computers, and think on very metaphysical/philosophical subject...afeter my conversion it was more obvious that I was God child, but after one year I started to doubt...in 1999 and from that time on I have had more and more doubts (with no foundations actually) and I started my long journey through science, philosophy, history....I've learnt many things BTW.Here is what I think is problematic in evolution (based on my -certainly- basic knowledge of the Evolution theory:--I can't conceive that a cell with all the complexity it involves, has been assembled by pure random.--the living fossils just make me amaze, because we were told that they were millions of years old, but still here they are.--I can not conceive a fish trying to go on land, he would die.--i have read the irreducible complexity theory, and I think it's not stupid. Even Darwin said that if it was proven that an organ could have not been produced by slight modifications then he's theory would break down.i like to discuss things and try to understand but i don't like when evolutionists take evolution for granted, whereas it's just an interpretation--to me.I understand very much Darwin's process, and truly believe that all animals were not created the way they are right now, they have adapted, this is proven. But we have never seen a dog turning into a dolphin.Even if I have difficulties with the evolution theory, I have many questions about creationism, and that gives me a headache, I can't make up my mind!Thanx for reading and answering, tell me what yo think.I know I'm young (21) and I need more knowledge maybe, but right now I'm strugling with this issue. Because on one hand there are former hard core evolutionist who are now creationist and vice versa maybe.have a nice day!

I read the blood clotting thing, from "Darwin's Black Box". This is such a complex system.I'm not a scientist so I can't enter in deep explanation, I'm sure you know more than I do.The bridge is made by people not by itself. When we study nature we don't expect it to "create" intricate things even in long periods.
It's really hard for me to even think that it took millions of years for a cell to appear, believe me this I find is against the natural against the natural laws that we currently know. Even a kid would not believe it.
But in the mean time I say to myself "what if it was possible", because no one will really know (if it took so much time). And even with our great technology we have never been able to create a living organism.Do you really believe that?I believe that all organisms "evolve", we adapt to our environment. This is scientificaly proven and it's a fact. Asian people, African...don't look the same but they are still human. But with the coelacanth fish, it was said to be 30 m. years old, but when they found it near Madagascar, it was mostly the same. But maybe it was only one or so member of this fish that got the "chance" to evolve?I would like scientists to explain how species vary. This is the most interesting thing ever.There is no proper order in what I write, just things that come to mind, before I forget.Actually when I first posted , it was to ask questions to creationists, but that's ok, because I have many questions for evolutionists too.I understand that you don't belive that the cell fully formed right here right now. But let's suppose we have now the first living organism, why would it evolve, unless it's written in its DNA then there's no way he can gain new functions. Just tell me if I'm wrong, I only write to get to know the theory better.Why can't we inter-cross each others (animals and humans), if we really evolved from one single ancestor?Do you believe that Nature is intelligent, because it looks like it is. A very common argument is the eye. Why would Nature gives us "tools" to apprehend the world?It's hard to understand why and how Nature would just work the way it works.I don't really want to argue because I don't think I can, but just getting answers would help, I think.Thanx to everyone who replied.

quote:

---

At the bottom of this, & every other post is a "reply" button (rather than the big button at the bottom of the page). If you click this then it shows to whom you are replying to.

---

thank you I was looking for donig so.

quote:

---

I responded to EXACTLY this issue in my last post. Given I spent a lot of time writing & researching message 10 for you, & you still raise points as if I never answered them, why should anyone respond to you if you aren't going to read responses to the issues you raise?

---

I'm sorry but while I was writing you posted your replies, I'm sorry if you felt I didn't read it, I did and thanx.

Here is the Coelacanth : and a fossil : for me they are the same, or at least they are still the same kind.
I'm reading evryone's posts but it takes time to reply.[This message has been edited by DoesGodExist, 07-30-2003]

quote:

---

This does not refute evolution.

---

I never meant to refute evolution, just to clarify things up for me.
I don't think there are strong evidences about evolution, it's all about how you want to interprete them. It's like a police investigation, there are many ways to explain something.But Darwin and other naturalist of his time were right i.e., species change to some extent.[This message has been edited by DoesGodExist, 07-30-2003][This message has been edited by DoesGodExist, 07-30-2003]

Hi,

quote:

---

Random mutation.What exactly do you need to have explained?

---

here I found this on The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research. Tell me what you think. it's a little bit old though
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Random mutation, well I don't believe it.. I believe as i said earlier, that organisms adapt to their environment, but it's not at random. I don't think that random is good at anything, only lottery.

quote:

---

Because organisms that have eyes do way better than those that don't? Remember the expression "In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king"?

---

That doesn't really help much, because Nature don't know the physical and mechanical laws as well as optical...well i guess.

quote:

---

Can you explain Halls 1982 experiment (message 10) where an enzyme, an expression control system, & associated protease EVOLVED VIA RM&NS. How is it possible to come up with something so ignorant as "random mutation, well I don't believe it", in the face of vast contradictory evidence. The statistical spread of mutations has been studied to death, & yet no one is really able to say mutations aren't predictively random? Might I suggest you consult a geneticist for your genetics?

---

here is an article written by Michael Behe himself, about Hall's experiment. Mr Behe is certainly more apt to answer than i am.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe02.aspI know it's from an Inteligent Design website, but still it's very acurate.And Mark evidences are not the same for everyone.

quote:

---

Last time this came up, someone mentioned that there are organisms with part of the blood clotting system we have. It's not IC.

---

thanx for answering, and I wanted to know if you can give me the link or info about the organisms with part of the blood clotting system?please.Thanx

quote:

---

Are you truly claiming that a predator with eyes will eat and mate no better than a blind one?

---

umm, no. I understand your point of view tho. But I find it hard to imagine such a thing as the formation of an eye or any organs, via pure random and natural selection. Maybe you take that for granted but i need some reflection.

quote:

---

Let me ask you - how would you go about proving that an organ could not evolve through slight modifications over time?

---

good question. What I understood by IC was that all the component have to be assembled, or unified for it to work, and at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong.I can't find any example right now....like the blood clotting (seems to me the best example right now...)

quote:

---

In disbelieving that this occurs, you are shutting your mind to evidence, & substituting your incredulity.

---

who told you about my incredulity, I'm not as clever and with much knowledge as you, what i'm trying is weigh the pros and cons, but he problem is that i only get feedback from evolutionists, I thought there were creationists, maybe they don't want to discuss it...I'm very open to what you're saying, and you know much about the subject.And what Behe also said is that Hall's experiment was made in a laboratory, with intelligent people directing it and making sure everything go well, and would certainly have never occured in the wild.But please don't be so rude, I have many things to learn. I'm testing every possibilities.

I will

Thanx zephyr!