Ugh, I can't abide the logic that mad cow disease and other such things are a signal that god wants us to be vegan.  That is the same logic that people use to claim that certain groups of people are being punished by God through AIDS (i.e. Africans, gays, etc.).  Besides, I don't see what that has to do with creationism anyway.  

I am also not sure how the existence of the remains of artifacts from the bible, such as Noah's ark, has anything to do with evolution.  It is not so unimaginable that we might find the remains of a ship used in bible times.  That doesn't prove creationism at all--it just indicates that some of the happenings in the bible might have truth to them.

Any scientists who believe in creationism are just that--scientists who believe in creationism.  It doesn't mean that creationism can be demonstrated through scientific inquiry.  It cannot.  But like jessacita said earlier, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the video is definately from a Christian perspective and was presented to show that side of the issue. Some were wondering what and why that side believed as they did and I included the video to show this. As with anything else we need to deal with the facts presented whether from one side of this issue or the other. Forget who is presenting them and deal with just the facts. I thought, though, that there was some things presented which were from a scientific perspective, certain physical laws for example which were shown as proof that evolution could not be possible, again in their view. I have spent quite a deal of time in the court system and have watched as judges had to deal with the evidence presented to them. You could always tell an honest judge as he or she would always somehow separate the testimony given from the person giving the testimony and would make decisions based upon the facts not the personality of the person giving it. That is, unless the person had some sort of background which would make his testimony questionable, his appearance, his  education, his speaking ability, the way he dresses and such things would never enter into the equation when considering the testimony he might give. I am not saying this was always the case but really made an impression on me when it did occur and gave me more respect for that judge who could do this. So we should strive for this in all our deciding what is reliable information. Many as sirdidymus37  said would be offended because there is a very Christian backgroud to the video that is in question as many would do the same if the slant was evolutionary but a true seeker for truth shold be able to put aside those prejudices and just consider the evidence and the right or wrong of that. The ones who are offended because of the source have probably already made up their mind on the issue and will not be open to changing it unless more information would come from "their" side.

Yes the video is definately from a Christian perspective and was presented to show that side of the issue. Some were wondering what and why that side believed as they did and I included the video to show this. As with anything else we need to deal with the facts presented whether from one side of this issue or the other. Forget who is presenting them and deal with just the facts. I thought, though, that there was some things presented which were from a scientific perspective, certain physical laws for example which were shown as proof that evolution could not be possible, again in their view. I have spent quite a deal of time in the court system and have watched as judges had to deal with the evidence presented to them. You could always tell an honest judge as he or she would always somehow separate the testimony given from the person giving the testimony and would make decisions based upon the facts not the personality of the person giving it. That is, unless the person had some sort of background which would make his testimony questionable, his appearance, his  education, his speaking ability, the way he dresses and such things would never enter into the equation when considering the testimony he might give. I am not saying this was always the case but really made an impression on me when it did occur and gave me more respect for that judge who could do this. So we should strive for this in all our deciding what is reliable information. Many as sirdidymus37  said would be offended because there is a very Christian backgroud to the video that is in question as many would do the same if the slant was evolutionary but a true seeker for truth shold be able to put aside those prejudices and just consider the evidence and the right or wrong of that. The ones who are offended because of the source have probably already made up their mind on the issue and will not be open to changing it unless more information would come from "their" side.

On a side note - I'm not entirely sure about this - but i believe the Biblical view of the universe depicts one in which earth is the spiritual center of the universe with man at the forefront.  If that's not correct - then please ignore my next comment.  If that is correct, then for the purpose of playing devil's advocate - i have to wonder why God would create such a big expansive universe just to inhabit only one planet with life?  Given that there is a Universe, and given that we know of it - i believe it's a natural step to want to then desire to explore that universe and further, see if life exists elsewhere.  If Earth is the only true center of life - why even expose us to a universe which might naturally evoke our curiosity?

I agree 100% when you suggest to put aside who may be presenting the facts and instead - focus on the facts themselves.  The problem though is this - i'm just a lay person.  For most of us that aren't scientist types - we're probably just lay people.  So a great deal of what we think about the world around us is - facts that are provided to us.  I venture to guess (and i can say for myself) that most of us do not set forth to test these facts - heck, how many of us even balance our checkbooks at the end of the month or check our paychecks for accuracy every paycheck, or our monthly bills either.  It's a silly point i'm making - but the point is that, we - as humans - tend to take ....A LOT... for granted, maybe because we don't want to be bothered or maybe we just don't fully understand.  Therefore, if we don't desire to test the accuracy of these facts for ourselves - a bit of discernment may be wise when choosing who accept these facts from.

When you refer to a court case - the credibility of the witness has most everything to do with someone trying to prove their case - which is why so much effort is oft times put into discrediting the witness.

While a lot of material in the video was presented as fact - there seemed to be a lot of leaps in logic.  There seemed a few instances where if the answer wasn't known (some examples would be how the gas planets were formed, how the moon was formed, why some moons have unexpected orbits, etc) - the conclusion was that it must have been at the hands of a creator.  While I certainly don't discount a creator may have had a hand in things - it's too much of a leap for me to presume that just because we don't know the answer - that it must automatically default to "creator".

I hesitate to say "offended" - as i don't know that someone might be offended at watching the video - but they might be much more likely to take it with a grain of salt, if not dismiss it all together.  Personally, I like to think of myself as well balanced (::PAUSES:: I allowed a moment for pause for laughter for anyone who might have needed it - ha) - but i'm, admittedly - not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to understanding various intricasies (sp.?) of science - so i tend to be, if nothing else, mindful of where i'm getting my information from.

Forgive some of my comments mirroring KmK's above - I was in the middle of typing my reply when hers came in round about the same time.

As I said I am not a scientist so only as sirdidymus37 says I am just a lay person. So when someone who is a scientist supplies information, say, on the laws of entrophy, then I can only think that he must know what he is talking about. Some may call this garbage but unless they have an explanation which proves what the scientist guy says is wrong then we can come to no conclusion. Is there a law of entrophy? What does it really say? How would it apply to the big bang theory? For us layman, for someone to say that what was presented is garbage is not very convincing.
I wonder since the position is being presented that creationists can only accept their ideas by faith how is it that evolutionists accept their ideas? Can they actually prove such a theory of the big bang?
The other point I have is the one I am still have trouble understanding. How is it that scientists who once believed in the idea of evolution can change their stand and now believe in creationism? Do they just close their eyes to all the evidence because it does not agree with their new found faith? There are many other videos which go much deeper than this one in explaining the origins of life and the young age of the earth, which I have seen in the past, and many other scientists who exept these ideas. Are they all deceived?

As I said I am not a scientist so only as sirdidymus37 says I am just a lay person. So when someone who is a scientist supplies information, say, on the laws of entrophy, then I can only think that he must know what he is talking about.

I don't believe that being a "layperson" is a valid argument for not knowing why you believe what you believe.  I'm a "layperson" in a lot of ways in a lot of areas - but if I'm using someone else's claims to base my worldview on, I'm going to look into it.  When someone tells me information that influences my opinion on something - especially BIG things like how the Earth was formed & where humans came from - I'm not going to say, "Oh, okay" and accept their word as fact.  Even if they say they are a scientist.  And especially if it's from a clearly biased source.  If a source is biased, it doesn't necessarily discredit their claims - but it does make them suspect, and we have the responsibility as viewers to inform ourselves & fact check.

This stuff is important & it matters, so I do my research & base my opinion on proven fact.  If proven fact isn't available, I base my opinion on what seems most plausible.

As I said I am not a scientist so only as sirdidymus37 says I am just a lay person. So when someone who is a scientist supplies information, say, on the laws of entrophy, then I can only think that he must know what he is talking about.

I don't believe that being a "layperson" is a valid argument for not knowing why you believe what you believe.  I'm a "layperson" in a lot of ways in a lot of areas - but if I'm using someone else's claims to base my worldview on, I'm going to look into it.  When someone tells me information that influences my opinion on something - especially BIG things like how the Earth was formed & where humans came from - I'm not going to say, "Oh, okay" and accept their word as fact.  Even if they say they are a scientist.  And especially if it's from a clearly biased source.  If a source is biased, it doesn't necessarily discredit their claims - but it does make them suspect, and we have the responsibility as viewers to inform ourselves & fact check.

This stuff is important & it matters, so I do my research & base my opinion on proven fact.  If proven fact isn't available, I base my opinion on what seems most plausible.

While what you say makes sense - at the end of the day - unless you're conducting your own experiments on which you feel confident to base a conclusion on - you're still accepting information that others have provided to you, and you're accepting that as fact, without necessarily personally knowing it as fact.

I think it makes sense for all of us, regardless of our particular stance to step back - if just for a moment, and go "why - do i believe such and such?"  Is it something i can relate to personally or is it theory and fact that i'm provided that i've never really had any reason to question - thus i readily accepted the information offered - as fact.

I'm not saying that will, nor should - change one's opinion - but it will make us perhaps more mindful of what foundation we're using to base our opinion and/or perception.

While what you say makes sense - at the end of the day - unless you're conducting your own experiments on which you feel confident to base a conclusion on - you're still accepting information that others have provided to you, and you're accepting that as fact, without necessarily personally knowing it as fact.

This philosophy is totally useless, unless you expect everyone to set up an experiment everytime they want to know something.  We don't have skills, resources, or knowledge to do that, and information we gather is tainted by our own personal experience and probably not representative of any real general truth.

It takes a whooooole lot more information, experimenting, and validation from an enormous group of individuals, with the right controls, to support scientific findings.  Especially the laws of motion!  Individual experimentation can't possibly bring us the facts--it's probably the worst way to get them!  That's where tainted information comes from, right there.

What IS useful is doing research on a topic (AND research on how that information was obtained, so you can judge it).  Choosing to remain ignorant or wishy-washy on a topic because you, personally, were not the one who researched it is terribly irresponsible.  

You can choose to flounder around in a "What does it all mean?" world-view, and have no usable opinions or facts, or you could use your brain and some basic research-evaluating skills to make some real meaningful choices.  

This philosophy is totally useless, unless you expect everyone to set up an experiment everytime they want to know something.  We don't have skills, resources, or knowledge to do that, and information we gather is tainted by our own personal experience and probably not representative of any real general truth.

It takes a whooooole lot more information, experimenting, and validation from an enormous group of individuals, with the right controls, to support scientific findings.  Especially the laws of motion!  Individual experimentation can't possibly bring us the facts--it's probably the worst way to get them!  That's where tainted information comes from, right there.

What IS useful is doing research on a topic (AND research on how that information was obtained, so you can judge it).  Choosing to remain ignorant or wishy-washy on a topic because you, personally, were not the one who researched it is terribly irresponsible.

You can choose to flounder around in a "What does it all mean?" world-view, and have no usable opinions or facts, or you could use your brain and some basic research-evaluating skills to make some real meaningful choices. 

Ok, it's useless - i get it  :'( ...so YEAH umm, anyhow, moving right along...

All that writing that you did ( well done - excellent articulation ) - it doesn't at all change umm, this:

...at the end of the day - unless you're conducting your own experiments on which you feel confident to base a conclusion on - you're still accepting information that others have provided to you, and you're accepting that as fact, without necessarily personally knowing it as fact.

you don't have to agree with it or like it to make it be correct.

I was bored with the radio on the drive home and didn't have CDs, so I amused myself with AM radio.  I spent a couple of minutes on a Christian station and heard an ad for Top Ten Proofs.  I read a few of them.  It misrepresents the issues.  No wonder people are confused.  I wish that creationists with a public following had the confidence to declare, "This is what I believe." and not have to misrepresent science to the public in an attempt to reason creationism.  Creationism isn't based in reason, it's based in faith.