creation vs evolution

Again, I'm glad that you presented this information here. You have skewed versions of many scientific ideas, and I'm happy to hear that you'd like more information. "The Sun's energy is destructive to everything on Earth except one molecule called Chlorophyll." This is not true. Every species on Earth depends on radiation from the sun for survival. Without the sun, we would freeze to death. The sun sustains the level of energy in our cells required for survival. Further, in a more direct sense, melanocytes have been shown to directly convert UV radiation from the sun into metabolic energy. Without the energy input of the sun, life would instantly cease on Earth. It's no surprise how common worship of the sun is throughout history. It gives us the energy we need! It is a simple fact that things can become more complex by the addition of energy. That is, after all, how the Coliseum was built. It falling apart is also not an example of the system becoming more chaotic because of the addition of energy. "Chaos" does not mean what you think it does. You're thinking in human terms. Take a clock, for instance, with its intricate gears and mechanisms. Complex, no? And that took energy. Now say you added more energy, via a hammer, to smash it. Less complex, right? Wrong. In an anthropocentric view, sure, but not from a thermodynamic standpoint. The clock, as disoriented as it looks to you as a human, is in fact a system of greater complexity. The entire system (that included the clock destroying person) is the system of less complexity. Unlike the clock, thermodynamics is not complex, but it is commonly misunderstood by the layman who try to apply its rules in ways that don't fit. It's like if you were pulled over by the police and given a ticket for going 55 miles per hour because a road three states over has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. It's all about the road you're on. Some people have no idea what road they're on. "The Law of Biogenesis" The Law of Biogenesis is not a "law" in the sense that the laws of physics are. It was proposed in the 1800s and is not held to the same esteem. It was meant only to show that life couldn't come from nothing. No one in the scientific community would say there's a "Law of Biogenesis," though they would referred to biogenesis as a physical process. Just as they'd refer to abiogenesis, which is the scientific word for the creation of life from none living matter. The processes for abiogenesis have been demonstrated in laboratory settings. It IS possible. "The Moon" Your theory assumes that the moon as been headed away from the Earth at a constant rate, which is not something that any scientist believes or has suggested. As you state yourself, gravity becomes exponentially more powerful as two bodies move closer to one another. In the early history of the earth and moon, the force of gravity held the two bodies more firmly together. The recession of the moon was less dramatic. In addition to this, a certain "resonance" has been established. This is not the early solar system. There are less outside influences affecting the orbit of the moon, and thus it had been able to proceed on its path unabated. For many reasons, the recession of the moon has increased. The evidence you've presented assumes processes have always occurred exactly as they are now. The evidence does not support this. You can't ignore inconvenient details. Though it is true that tides were more dramatic billions of years ago, they are not as dramatic as you say. Life on Earth at the time was perfectly adapted to such conditions anyway, as it was almost certainly aquatic. ----------------------------- I think what has occurred here is something I've seen many times before. A popular Christian speaker twists a scientific theory until it sounds like it supports theism. I am fully in support of people being religious, but they must accept that what they have is faith. They believe certain things because they've decided a god has allowed for supernatural occurrences, and that could very well be true, but only when you disregard science first. Don't look to science to help you. It doesn't. Just accept that you don't NEED science. I, personally, like it a lot though.