NationStates Jolt Archive

Although 'creationist' might be the wrong term...
Im not really sure how to phrase it, but 'creative evolutionist' would be better, y'see, I really dont see why people are so stiff and unbending about religious doctrine. I fully acknowledge that for scientific reasons the world can be more than 6000 years old, BUT, to take a page from Terry Pratchett, how long has it been 83 billion years old?
Put simply, God is omnipotent, it should not be too terribly difficult to snap your fingers and make something BE X years old.
Evolution as well, why cant God steer a few asteroids into the right coarse, ensure they create the correct chemical reaction to form certain molocules in certain places, which suddenly have this great idea to start reproducing, thus creating the nasty little thing we like to call life, He then pushes a few things around, and has this great Idea to make things adapt to their enviornment which He created.
Then He gets another idea, what about making some race that actualy THINKS in a process similar to His own? Sure, most of them might be jerks, and hey, a few of them might not even know the truth about why they happen to be here, but hey, a good portion are OK.

Of course, I am open to ideas, and I know the whole thing isnt entirly consistent, but its God.
Remember, you may not beleive in God, but He beleives in you :P

At last some sensible insight! Of course it makes 'sense' and SHOULD make most people happy :).

Because you just threw in an extra unneeded variable. Occam's Razor says that God isn't needed there (X is evolution, G is god, T is time, Y is outcome...X*T=Y or X*G*T=Y)...

The problem is that while you might not need God, God is there. I personaly dont see how everything having existed from forever in the form of a single molocule containing the Universe is anymore sensible than God having existed from forever and snapping his fingers to create everything.

The problem is that while you might not need God, God is there. I personaly dont see how everything having existed from forever in the form of a single molocule containing the Universe is anymore sensible than God having existed from forever and snapping his fingers to create everything.
Where did God come from?

You are on the right track toward Truth!
Evolution is of course impossible from a Biblical perspective and a mere hypothesis from any other.

God isn't there. I don't want him to beleive in me.

I have a question: Why are you telling us this?

Did someone make fun of your beliefs, and so you feel some need to justify them? Are you doing this out of a sense of duty, being an online missionary? Or do you just feel like stirring up "controversy?"

You are on the right track toward Truth!
Evolution is of course impossible from a Biblical perspective and a mere hypothesis from any other.
Really.

Care to back that statement up?

Where did God come from?
Where did that little ball of hydrogen molocules come from?
Simple answer, nobody knows, its imppossible for the human mind to comprehend something that big, sort of like trying to remember things from when you were two, you didnt have words for anything back then, though the best way to describe this period of time would be 'infinity'.
As you may notice, I am not a theologian, merely a moderatly moderate Christian.
If were allowed calls after death, Ill look up your number and tell you what God says about when He came into existance, if He did.

Katholic Kingdom:
Ummm...I was bored?
I think thats it, a good debate is hard to come by :P

Really.

Care to back that statement up?

Evolution is a fact. It has been seen in the past, but god only knows the mechanism that makes evolution (pardon the pun).

Where did that little ball of hydrogen molocules come from?
Simple answer, nobody knows, its imppossible for the human mind to comprehend something that big, sort of like trying to remember things from when you were two, you didnt have words for anything back then, though the best way to describe this period of time would be 'infinity'.
As you may notice, I am not a theologian, merely a moderatly moderate Christian.
If were allowed calls after death, Ill look up your number and tell you what God says about when He came into existance, if He did.
*sigh*

First off, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, just to get that straight. Second, hydrogen molcules formed after the anti-matter/matter reactions (well, after everything started to settle down) following that mess, third, yeah, it is possible to comprehend, because a whole lot of people seem to do it, and fourth, try me.

*sigh*

First off, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, just to get that straight. Second, hydrogen molcules formed after the anti-matter/matter reactions (well, after everything started to settle down) following that mess, third, yeah, it is possible to comprehend, because a whole lot of people seem to do it, and fourth, try me.
Ah, in my first post I addressed the issue, I thought that you were refering to that. First and a half, its kinda hard to have evolution without a Universe :), Second, where did the matter/antimatter come from?
Third...is tricky, but hey, its mostly a matter of opinion. A person (my opinion) cant really understand that amount of time, they might think they can though.
Fourth, I will. Maybe they have hotmail :)

I'll tell you why God exists:

'God' exists so that people who can't understand the origins and creation of the universe (and I don't claim to) can get some sort of comfort with a mythical idea of a large, mysterious, invisible, omnipotent, man sitting up somewhere in the sky (before human explored space) who we can attribute everything we don;t understand about life to.

Then creationists or Christians claim that to understand God is impossible. We can't reduce God's mind to human logic, etc, etc.

It's a stupid circle for 'God's' sake!!!!!

We wanted some sort of placebo to satisfy our discomfort with not having a reason for everything, so we created a myth and still don't have a reason for everything - expect some invisible dude who never feels the need to reveal himself - excpet in historical tales!

Oh - and yes - spare me the stuff about 'God' revelaing himself every day, balh blah blah in 'miracles' etc.

Oh well, that's my little rant for the day. I expect many rebuffs in return - so get typing Creationists!! :)

Ah, in my first post I addressed the issue, I thought that you were refering to that. First and a half, its kinda hard to have evolution without a Universe :), Second, where did the matter/antimatter come from?
Third...is tricky, but hey, its mostly a matter of opinion. A person (my opinion) cant really understand that amount of time, they might think they can though.
Fourth, I will. Maybe they have hotmail :)
Yes, but evolution is independent from the universal creation theories, anything there can be proven/disproven and it wouldn't effect evolution, second, it could just be looping though infinite cycles, over and over again, there is no start and a finish, and third, yes, you can understand that much time, it is just a matter of scale.

You are on the right track toward Truth!
Evolution is of course impossible from a Biblical perspective and a mere hypothesis from any other.

It's true that evolution is labeled a theory, but the scientific definition of "theory" differs from the conventional one. A theory in science is a scientifically tested and established fact.
As far as God is concerned, I think that belief in a god(s) and belief in evolution can co-exist peacefully, even if an individual doesn't beleive in one or the other.

Yes, as Batville stated, the scientific definition of "theory" basically means a hypothesis that has lasted a long time, without being disproven. I think.

Anyway, a scientific theory is a very solid platform.

Yes, as Batville stated, the scientific definition of "theory" basically means a hypothesis that has for a long time, hasn't been disproven. I think.

Anyway, a scientific theory is a very solid platform.

More solid than a made up book thats for sure.

It's true that evolution is labeled a theory, but the scientific definition of "theory" differs from the conventional one. A theory in science is a scientifically tested and established fact.
As far as God is concerned, I think that belief in a god(s) and belief in evolution can co-exist peacefully, even if an individual doesn't beleive in one or the other.
It's nothing but a hypothesis, not a theory.
It's only basis is in Darwin's twisted ideas and has only survived due to secularist agenda.

It's nothing but a hypothesis, not a theory.
It's only basis is in Darwin's twisted ideas and has only survived due to secularist agenda.
No, it is a theory, one that has never been disproven (not for a lack of trying) by non-secularists like yourself.

But I can be amused. Give it your best shot.

First off, I will admit I am an athiest (don't believe in God(s) in any way or form), though have no probelm with other people believing in whatever they want to (except for the few who try to shove it down my throat).

I am a firm believe in evolution and don't believe in the creation (by God) at all. I do however find the evolution of religion more interesting than the evolution of the planet. Not that long ago, evolution was denied in any form, scoffed at, a lot of places banned teaching the theory and burned Darwin's writings on the subject. It was a very definate no no in church circles.
These days though, I am hearing more and more this sort of "blending" of the two. I am not going to say creationists that feel this way are "wrong" though. If this helps them accept science, and also keep their faith, then who's to say they should'nt believe in whatever they want to. I wonder if other area's of church thinking stuck in the dark ages, can also find this sort of path out.

First off, I will admit I am an athiest (don't believe in God(s) in any way or form), though have no probelm with other people believing in whatever they want to (except for the few who try to shove it down my throat).

I am a firm believe in evolution and don't believe in the creation (by God) at all. I do however find the evolution of religion more interesting than the evolution of the planet.

Same here,
I'm a bit similar, I'm a nontheist, meaning I'm an atheist and have sort of debating within myself between Agonostic (The belief that we have no way in knowing if there even is a truth) or what I am now, a Materialist.

Materiaism is orginially a philosophical belief that everything is in the material world and everything in existance is made of matter, or depends on matter to exist. Mental thoughts are also made of matter in the end, neurons fire up in our brain, a phyiscal action, physical actions are pertaining of matter. I don't believe in spirtuality, afterlife, souls, mortality or even the existance of human conscieness. I found the church and these mainstream religons too intellectually restricting, I feel they try to force me to bow down and mindlessly accept whatever "god" wants me to do, and thinking about life and the universe are sinful, too authoritarian for me.

My thoughts about "being out of human comprehesion" is quite radical, everything possible knowing, is possible for humans to know, there is nothing humans can't know, it will just take time for us to advance and research the universe. All these ideas of an external world are hollow, to put it simply:

"All knowledge is human knowledge" -Hegel

Although 'creationist' might be the wrong term...
Im not really sure how to phrase it, but 'creative evolutionist' would be better, y'see, I really dont see why people are so stiff and unbending about religious doctrine. I fully acknowledge that for scientific reasons the world can be more than 6000 years old, BUT, to take a page from Terry Pratchett, how long has it been 83 billion years old?
Put simply, God is omnipotent, it should not be too terribly difficult to snap your fingers and make something BE X years old.
Evolution as well, why cant God steer a few asteroids into the right coarse, ensure they create the correct chemical reaction to form certain molocules in certain places, which suddenly have this great idea to start reproducing, thus creating the nasty little thing we like to call life, He then pushes a few things around, and has this great Idea to make things adapt to their enviornment which He created.
Then He gets another idea, what about making some race that actualy THINKS in a process similar to His own? Sure, most of them might be jerks, and hey, a few of them might not even know the truth about why they happen to be here, but hey, a good portion are OK.

Of course, I am open to ideas, and I know the whole thing isnt entirly consistent, but its God.
Remember, you may not beleive in God, but He beleives in you :P


You may choose to believe in any God or Gods you wish, and attribute any abilities to them that your heart desires.

That does not make it so.

You could use the same logic to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat.

Wish as hard as you like, nothing changes.

I have no objection to people believing in creationism. I do object to it being taught as science.

The problem with religion is that it doesn't just argue in favor or disfavor of God. If that was merely the case, no religion could ever be proven or disproven.

On the contrary though, almost every religion carries along with it a required set of facts which back up its claim to a particular God. Each religion's God is not only defined by its attributes, but also its actions.

And those actions are verifiable. Christianity, for example, includes a vast number of claims which have zero empirical evidence to coroborate them. Everything from the Great Flood, to Exodus, to the existence of Jesus himself. Not only is there no hard evidence (only theories and vague assocations) proving any one of those events, there is a great deal of evidence disproving it.

And, if the historical claims made in that particular book are false, can one in good conscience pick and choose what to believe?

God vs No God is a pointless, albeit somewhat entertaining, argument. However, the veracity of a partiuclar religion is fairly straightforward and never ends well for the religion.

:sniper:

My goodness
the rediculous notions and misinformation that is running rampent through this thread is appauling

First of all
Evolution is not scientific
nor is it a theory

to be scietific something must be observable either in the real world or in a lab
to be a theory it must be testable
as Evolution has never been observed or tested it cannot be a scientific theory
in fact, contrary to popular misconception, there is no actual physical evidence for evolution. Rather there is only conjecture and blind faith in the unseen
Real physical evidence shows us that fossils can be formed in less than a century not millions of years
Oil has been radio carbon dated at less than 10,000 years old
I can continue for a long time but the fact is that nearly all science today is inturpreted as if evolution was already a prooven law
anyone who dares chalenge this is shunned by other scientists, their funding dries up and they change their views or get a different job

My goodness
the rediculous notions and misinformation that is running rampent through this thread is appauling

First of all
Evolution is not scientific
nor is it a theory

to be scietific something must be observable either in the real world or in a lab
to be a theory it must be testable
as Evolution has never been observed or tested it cannot be a scientific theory
in fact, contrary to popular misconception, there is no actual physical evidence for evolution. Rather there is only conjecture and blind faith in the unseen
Real physical evidence shows us that fossils can be formed in less than a century not millions of years
Oil has been radio carbon dated at less than 10,000 years old
I can continue for a long time but the fact is that nearly all science today is inturpreted as if evolution was already a prooven law
anyone who dares chalenge this is shunned by other scientists, their funding dries up and they change their views or get a different job

At least one person is not a slave to the establishment.

What I've found works best for me is the common sense test.
Evolution makes sense. It makes sense that given enough time, more successful breeding traits would survive onto the next generation.
We can see examples of this in every day life. It's called selective breeding. Ever notice any difference between dog breeds?

Another thing that I've come to view as "proof" of evolution... goose bumps.
We, as humans, get them. So do most other mammals. The actual function for goosebumps are to raise the hairs more perpendicular to the skin. This has the effect of increasing the thickness of the fur coat and increase the heat retention characteristic of said fur coat. You know.. helps keep in the warmth when you feel cold.

What it does in humans tho is the opposite. Since we no longer have fur coats, goosebumps actually cause humans to lose more heat. Goosebumps cause your surface area to increase drastically thereby increasing your rate of heat transfer. Just the opposite of what should happen. It doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I too believe in creative evolution. I see no discrepency with a divine "helping" evolution along.

What I've found works best for me is the common sense test.
Evolution makes sense. It makes sense that given enough time, more successful breeding traits would survive onto the next generation.
We can see examples of this in every day life. It's called selective breeding. Ever notice any difference between dog breeds?

Another thing that I've come to view as "proof" of evolution... goose bumps.
We, as humans, get them. So do most other mammals. The actual function for goosebumps are to raise the hairs more perpendicular to the skin. This has the effect of increasing the thickness of the fur coat and increase the heat retention characteristic of said fur coat. You know.. helps keep in the warmth when you feel cold.

What it does in humans tho is the opposite. Since we no longer have fur coats, goosebumps actually cause humans to lose more heat. Goosebumps cause your surface area to increase drastically thereby increasing your rate of heat transfer. Just the opposite of what should happen. It doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I too believe in creative evolution. I see no discrepency with a divine "helping" evolution along.


You were doing so well. Right up to the last sentence.

You may choose to believe in "creative evolution".

But can you produce even a shred of evidence for such a belief?

Where did that little ball of hydrogen molocules come from?



"Prior" to the big bang, it wasnt just mass that was contained in a singular existence, the dimension of time was singular as well. "Before" does not apply.

You were doing so well. Right up to the last sentence.

You may choose to believe in "creative evolution".

But can you produce even a shred of evidence for such a belief?
Can you produce even a shred of evidence that I am incorrect in my belief?
Can you produce even a shred of evidence proving evolution devoid of divine influence is a fact?

All this talk about scientific theory being fact is just crap. Neither story can be proven. Period. When either side points to something, the other side can explain it in their own way.

I believe in evolution. I believe in the Divine. No problem.

At least one person is not a slave to the establishment.

Instead your a slave to the church. He said something that interested me, it's just blind faith. TT why can you have your blind faith and force it on everyone, but no one else can. I think I'm begining to dislike you.

Can you produce even a shred of evidence that I am incorrect in my belief?
Can you produce even a shred of evidence proving evolution devoid of divine influence is a fact?

All this talk about scientific theory being fact is just crap. Neither story can be proven. Period. When either side points to something, the other side can explain it in their own way.

I believe in evolution. I believe in the Divine. No problem.

Nicely said. The whole "you can't even discuss something unless you can prove it" line of reasoning is getting pretty old.

Can you produce even a shred of evidence that I am incorrect in my belief?
Can you produce even a shred of evidence proving evolution devoid of divine influence is a fact?

All this talk about scientific theory being fact is just crap. Neither story can be proven. Period. When either side points to something, the other side can explain it in their own way.

I believe in evolution. I believe in the Divine. No problem.

As I said, you can believe whatever you like.

If you are prepared to believe things on the basis that they appeal to you, or that "it is written", that is entirely up to you.

As I have said, you may use such "logic" to establish that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat, or any other ridiculous proposal you may wish.

However, if you wish to espouse such ideas in a forum such as this, then you should expect readers to question the basis of such a belief. There is plenty of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. There is none for the fancy of creationism.

Although 'creationist' might be the wrong term...
Im not really sure how to phrase it, but 'creative evolutionist' would be better, y'see, I really dont see why people are so stiff and unbending about religious doctrine. I fully acknowledge that for scientific reasons the world can be more than 6000 years old, BUT, to take a page from Terry Pratchett, how long has it been 83 billion years old?
Put simply, God is omnipotent, it should not be too terribly difficult to snap your fingers and make something BE X years old.
Evolution as well, why cant God steer a few asteroids into the right coarse, ensure they create the correct chemical reaction to form certain molocules in certain places, which suddenly have this great idea to start reproducing, thus creating the nasty little thing we like to call life, He then pushes a few things around, and has this great Idea to make things adapt to their enviornment which He created.
Then He gets another idea, what about making some race that actualy THINKS in a process similar to His own? Sure, most of them might be jerks, and hey, a few of them might not even know the truth about why they happen to be here, but hey, a good portion are OK.

Of course, I am open to ideas, and I know the whole thing isnt entirly consistent, but its God.
Remember, you may not beleive in God, but He beleives in you :P

Congratulations, you're being patronising.

"I think your God is just Satan in disguise - he used frail mortals to slip lies and fallacies into the Bible to set all Christians on the path to hell. I pity you, and will pray for you."

See? Not fun, is it, being told that your belief system is flawed. Maybe you should show others basic courtesy and not preach down to them?

i enjoy reading posts with such diversity on one subject such as this.

i think we all have quite different opinions on such a subject and i read them because i have an open mind to do so and to possibly pick up something that reinforces or changes my thoughts and opinions on the matter, for this i thank you all.

my thoughts on this is as follows:

first off whether you believe in evelution or creationism, God or no God, it should be done through science, anything from DNA to planet exploration, archeology and beyond. I think this is where science and faith seem to argue if a person believes in God then he should be williing to search for him through science because faith is not of fact. I heard aguments on man being on the earth for just around 5k years because thats how some people interpret the biblical readings same for the so called apocolypse or end times, again on interpratation through translation. From this stand point alone i would have to use science for many of these answers and not put my dependity on reading a set of books that was written by man. And yes i believe in God but i see miracles through science where i believe if you want to understand God (or whatever you claim or not claim as such) the way to search for him/her/? is through scientific facts.

in closing i would like to say i don't like to label myself in any catagory for what i believe but i do believe in an open mind and enjoy everybodies perspectives on this issue regardless of what you believe or don't believe.

As I said, you can believe whatever you like.

If you are prepared to believe things on the basis that they appeal to you, or that "it is written", that is entirely up to you.

As I have said, you may use such "logic" to establish that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat, or any other ridiculous proposal you may wish.

However, if you wish to espouse such ideas in a forum such as this, then you should expect readers to question the basis of such a belief. There is plenty of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. There is none for the fancy of creationism.
As you said, you can believe what ever YOU want.

But you are unable to provide any proof that I am incorrect. A scientific theory survives because it can't be disproven. ;)

As you said, you can believe what ever YOU want.

But you are unable to provide any proof that I am incorrect. A scientific theory survives because it can't be disproven. ;)

A scientific theory is born from observation and measurement. It is adapted or replaced once it no longer fits with the known facts.

Religious dogma exists because it once "was written", and is unchanged by facts.

The theory of evolution is supported by the fossil record, selective breeding practices among domestic animals and plants, the appearance of drug-resistant bacteria, the appearance of new diseases such as AIDS, and the latest genetic studies, particularly into DNA.

And creationism is supported by ?

In London during the 19th century a special sort of white and black butterfly was subjected to evolution. Cos of all the polution birchtrees became black, and since that butterfly used to sit on birches the ones that were white became visable to birds and thus eaten, while the black ones survived.

In London during the 19th century a special sort of white and black butterfly was subjected to evolution. Cos of all the polution birchtrees became black, and since that butterfly used to sit on birches the ones that were white became visable to birds and thus eaten, while the black ones survived.
Moths.

The case of the peppered moth was not complete evidence of evolution -- it was evidence of natural selection. Both black and white varieties of the peppered moth existed at the time, and populations shifted during the industrial revolution due to changes in the natural environment. Modern humans have also shown reverse of natural selection -- diseases and defects which in the past would reduce an individual's chances of procreating, have started to become more prominent now that mitigations are possible. Things like diabetes, bad eyesight, mental retardation.

Evolution alone is not "the theory of evolution." It is a combination of mutation and natural selection.

No one argues that if a favorable mutation takes place, it gives that mutation a better chance to spread because those that carry it are more likely to survive and spread those genes.

The key argument against evolution is that some feel it is unlikely that chance mutation and the resulting natural selection could result in what has become humanity and other animals, not whether or not evolution can take place or ever did.

"Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine." - Askitiki

You are a creationist, you believe what you are told. Much like the people that believe whatever is written down in the Bible, you believe in whatever was written down by some scientists. I can't see the difference.

Ive read through a few documents based on weeding out the flaws in creationisim and frankly theres 'way' too many gaps in information for me to take it as a serious religion/science.

Until creationists explain themselves better im just going to refer to it as a sub religion of christianity.

Although 'creationist' might be the wrong term...
Im not really sure how to phrase it, but 'creative evolutionist' would be better, y'see, I really dont see why people are so stiff and unbending about religious doctrine. I fully acknowledge that for scientific reasons the world can be more than 6000 years old, BUT, to take a page from Terry Pratchett, how long has it been 83 billion years old?
Put simply, God is omnipotent, it should not be too terribly difficult to snap your fingers and make something BE X years old.
Evolution as well, why cant God steer a few asteroids into the right coarse, ensure they create the correct chemical reaction to form certain molocules in certain places, which suddenly have this great idea to start reproducing, thus creating the nasty little thing we like to call life, He then pushes a few things around, and has this great Idea to make things adapt to their enviornment which He created.
Then He gets another idea, what about making some race that actualy THINKS in a process similar to His own? Sure, most of them might be jerks, and hey, a few of them might not even know the truth about why they happen to be here, but hey, a good portion are OK.

Of course, I am open to ideas, and I know the whole thing isnt entirly consistent, but its God.
Remember, you may not beleive in God, but He beleives in you :P
How dost thou know about God? Hast thou met Him? And why knowest thou not that an omniscient God does not have ideas?

*sigh*

First off, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, .

BOOM, this guy is right on.

Here's an essay I wrote on the topic last year. It's sort of long, but I hope you at least enjoy it.

Evolution vs. Creation
by Romis (note, name changed for internet purposes)

Seemingly the Bible and Darwin have nothing in common... or do they?

Back in the 12th century which was WAAY before anyone ever heard of Darwin, many Jewish scholars pointed out that the Bible seems to show how life... what's the word... evolves. First there was fish in the sea (a statement from the Bible that modern day evolutionists have "confirmed") then on land (remember, it says that the animals were BROUGHT FORTH which may mean evolved), and finally there's man. So what's the difference between the Bible and Darwin? The only difference is that the Bible says that God did it, while Darwin said it happened by accident.

But wait a minute! Six days is a lot shorter then the 4 1/2 some billion years that carbon dating suggests life existed.

Have you considered the way the Bible uses "days.”? How could there be days, evenings, and nights, if the sun and moon, which signify them, were not created until the third day? Perhaps the Bible's "days" are really periods of time. They could have lasted decades, or like my Chemistry class on Friday seems, billions of years.

Now here are my problems with natural selection as described by Darwin and evolutionists:

Consider the Eiffel Tower... no let's go even smaller. Consider the Mona Lisa.
http://www.kottke.org/plus/photos/200105europe/monalisa.jpg

Notice how perfect it is. No one would look at it and claim that little pixels of paint joined together on a canvas to create the unique painting. No one can claim that the unique smile she has was simply an accident. Yet, according to evolutionists, that's how the world and how mankind was formed.

Mankind is certainly more complex in a painting or then a tower. The human brain for example is so complex that it hasn't even been able to figure itself out completely yet. How could this have been formed by chance?

Going back to the Eiffel Tower, could the brinks and elevator cables just randomly came together to produce something so unique? Of course not! There was a team of architects that designed it. In our world, God is the master architect, the master painter, and the master what ever else you can think of.

Now lets assume that we CAN evolve, and that mutations occurred in such a way that would make us better. So why hasn't that happened? True, mutations have caused insects resistant to DDT, but has that made them more complex? Even WITH the resistance, they're still the same basic flies. In fact, the majority of mutations observed by scientists have actually made the organism LESS likely to survive, such as a mutation that caused fly wings to be smaller and less crumpled.

And about natural selection, I still find many inconsistencies. For example, the bird. Since it supposedly evolved from bacteria it didn’t always have a wing. And since evolution is a gradual process, it didn’t just not have it one generation, then the kids have it. What supposedly happened is that the wing grew over millions of years… So then some generations would be lugging around a useless half wing. So with all that extra weight, tell me how they were more likely to survive when running from predators.

And tell me about the poisonous types of snakes. Since single cell bacteria don’t emit poison, it had to evolve both the poison emitters and the poison itself separately (since some snakes don’t emit poison). So which did it evolve first? The mechanism to eject poison? Well how would that help it? Did it somehow prophetically know that it would someday eject poison? How would this make it more likely to survive. And there’s the other option, that it evolved the poison first. But if it evolved the poison first with nowhere to store it for ejection, it would have to store it somewhere else, where it would matter and probably poison the snake itself. Yet we have poison emitting snakes today. Is it possible that perhaps they were created to survive? If so, who created them?

And what about the egg of a chicken? Well as you may know, the egg is of a perfect thickness. If it were to be any thinner it would be too thin, and the egg would easily break, thereby endangering the chick inside. If it were any thicker the chick couldn’t peck its way out. So that means in order for there to be chicks and chickens today (which there are) the thickness of the egg had to be perfect the first time.

Similarly is the location of the Earth. The Earth is approximately 93 million miles from the sun. Any closer and we’d all burn. Any farther and we’d freeze. How it is that the Earth is at the exact position it needs to be to support life? Was that also an accident?

Another question is from where did we evolve? According to evolution we all evolved from single celled bacteria that spontaneously generated. Wait, though. Didn’t we already disprove spontaneous generation years ago? Why haven’t scientists them been able to produce bacteria spontaneously? True, they have produced some parts of RNA and types of lipids, but they aren’t alive now are they? Maybe creation of life should be left to just one?

In conclusion, I believe in evolution, but that it was God-instituted, and did not happen randomly on it’s own or by any sort of natural selection or mutation.

Here's an essay I wrote on the topic last year. It's sort of long, but I hope you at least enjoy it.

Evolution vs. Creation
by Romis (note, name changed for internet purposes)

Seemingly the Bible and Darwin have nothing in common... or do they?

Back in the 12th century which was WAAY before anyone ever heard of Darwin, many Jewish scholars pointed out that the Bible seems to show how life... what's the word... evolves. First there was fish in the sea (a statement from the Bible that modern day evolutionists have "confirmed") then on land (remember, it says that the animals were BROUGHT FORTH which may mean evolved), and finally there's man. So what's the difference between the Bible and Darwin? The only difference is that the Bible says that God did it, while Darwin said it happened by accident.

But wait a minute! Six days is a lot shorter then the 4 1/2 some billion years that carbon dating suggests life existed.

Have you considered the way the Bible uses "days.”? How could there be days, evenings, and nights, if the sun and moon, which signify them, were not created until the third day? Perhaps the Bible's "days" are really periods of time. They could have lasted decades, or like my Chemistry class on Friday seems, billions of years.

Now here are my problems with natural selection as described by Darwin and evolutionists:

Consider the Eiffel Tower... no let's go even smaller. Consider the Mona Lisa.
http://www.kottke.org/plus/photos/200105europe/monalisa.jpg

Notice how perfect it is. No one would look at it and claim that little pixels of paint joined together on a canvas to create the unique painting. No one can claim that the unique smile she has was simply an accident. Yet, according to evolutionists, that's how the world and how mankind was formed.

Mankind is certainly more complex in a painting or then a tower. The human brain for example is so complex that it hasn't even been able to figure itself out completely yet. How could this have been formed by chance?

Going back to the Eiffel Tower, could the brinks and elevator cables just randomly came together to produce something so unique? Of course not! There was a team of architects that designed it. In our world, God is the master architect, the master painter, and the master what ever else you can think of.

Now lets assume that we CAN evolve, and that mutations occurred in such a way that would make us better. So why hasn't that happened? True, mutations have caused insects resistant to DDT, but has that made them more complex? Even WITH the resistance, they're still the same basic flies. In fact, the majority of mutations observed by scientists have actually made the organism LESS likely to survive, such as a mutation that caused fly wings to be smaller and less crumpled.

And about natural selection, I still find many inconsistencies. For example, the bird. Since it supposedly evolved from bacteria it didn’t always have a wing. And since evolution is a gradual process, it didn’t just not have it one generation, then the kids have it. What supposedly happened is that the wing grew over millions of years… So then some generations would be lugging around a useless half wing. So with all that extra weight, tell me how they were more likely to survive when running from predators.

And tell me about the poisonous types of snakes. Since single cell bacteria don’t emit poison, it had to evolve both the poison emitters and the poison itself separately (since some snakes don’t emit poison). So which did it evolve first? The mechanism to eject poison? Well how would that help it? Did it somehow prophetically know that it would someday eject poison? How would this make it more likely to survive. And there’s the other option, that it evolved the poison first. But if it evolved the poison first with nowhere to store it for ejection, it would have to store it somewhere else, where it would matter and probably poison the snake itself. Yet we have poison emitting snakes today. Is it possible that perhaps they were created to survive? If so, who created them?

And what about the egg of a chicken? Well as you may know, the egg is of a perfect thickness. If it were to be any thinner it would be too thin, and the egg would easily break, thereby endangering the chick inside. If it were any thicker the chick couldn’t peck its way out. So that means in order for there to be chicks and chickens today (which there are) the thickness of the egg had to be perfect the first time.

Similarly is the location of the Earth. The Earth is approximately 93 million miles from the sun. Any closer and we’d all burn. Any farther and we’d freeze. How it is that the Earth is at the exact position it needs to be to support life? Was that also an accident?

Another question is from where did we evolve? According to evolution we all evolved from single celled bacteria that spontaneously generated. Wait, though. Didn’t we already disprove spontaneous generation years ago? Why haven’t scientists them been able to produce bacteria spontaneously? True, they have produced some parts of RNA and types of lipids, but they aren’t alive now are they? Maybe creation of life should be left to just one?

In conclusion, I believe in evolution, but that it was God-instituted, and did not happen randomly on it’s own or by any sort of natural selection or mutation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Numbers:
CB000
CB010
CB020
CB050
CB200
CB300 (CB303, CB340, CB341)
CF002
CF003

Oh, and as for the location of earth, of course it is perfect. We are here. Life evolved because conditions were right, not the other way around. This world is perfect for us because we adapted to it.

Romish Moldova, you should really do some research into what evolution actually is. It night clear up a lot of things for you.

Just as an example, at no point was there "half a wing" or "half an eye" just because our distant ancestors didn't have them. And yes, the vast, vast majority of mutations in organisms is harmfull, like the example you gave of the fly with the crumpled wings.

Thats the whole point.

FACT: Mutations happen.
FACT: Most mutations are passed on genetically (dominant or recessive soen't really matter).
FACT: Most of these mutations are directly harmfull to the organism, some are neutral, and a very small minority are beneficial.
FACT: The individuals with harmfull mutations are less likely to surive and breed, so after a few generations that trait will have dissapeared.
FACT: The individuals with the beneficial mutations will be more likely to survive and breed (due to the defenition of "beneficial") and after a few generations they will have out-competed the individuals without that trait.

Evolution. What might have begun as a light sensing surface on a slug of some kind, after tens of thousands of generations became an eye, and at no point was there "half an eye". Just light-sensing equipment which got better and better. And worse, but the organisms with worse eyesight would have died or developed other ways of sensing where they are and where their prey is.

Evolution didn't have the purpose of creating man. Nor is evolution guided in any way; its pretty random. That child gets a genetic transcript error which causes his nervous system to malfunction; he died. This child gets a genetic transcript error which gives him a opposable thumbs; he survives.

to be scietific something must be observable either in the real world or in a lab
to be a theory it must be testable

I guess archaeology isn't science in your world then. Last time I checked, we don't have a time machine to go back and test their theories.

You have a very flawed view of science, my dear.

as Evolution has never been observed or tested it cannot be a scientific theory

It has been observed in bacteria, which are pretty much the only models we have that breed fast enough to test it.

It has also been tested by looking at DNA of different species and in many other ways as well.

first off whether you believe in evelution or creationism, God or no God, it should be done through science, anything from DNA to planet exploration, archeology and beyond. I think this is where science and faith seem to argue if a person believes in God then he should be williing to search for him through science because faith is not of fact. I heard aguments on man being on the earth for just around 5k years because thats how some people interpret the biblical readings same for the so called apocolypse or end times, again on interpratation through translation. From this stand point alone i would have to use science for many of these answers and not put my dependity on reading a set of books that was written by man. And yes i believe in God but i see miracles through science where i believe if you want to understand God (or whatever you claim or not claim as such) the way to search for him/her/? is through scientific facts.

One problem here. If God is an all-powerful being who created the Universe as we know it, God necessarily exists outside the rules of that Universe. Thus, science cannot prove/disprove God and searching for God through science is useless.

The problem with this debate is that people think the two are diametrically opposed. They are not. Science assumes that there is no God, because the purpose of science is to explain and predict natural phenomena. God, by definition, exists outside of the realm of science and is thus of no consequence in science.

One problem here. If God is an all-powerful being who created the Universe as we know it, God necessarily exists outside the rules of that Universe. Thus, science cannot prove/disprove God and searching for God through science is useless.

The problem with this debate is that people think the two are diametrically opposed. They are not. Science assumes that there is no God, because the purpose of science is to explain and predict natural phenomena. God, by definition, exists outside of the realm of science and is thus of no consequence in science. Thats not quite true. Science doesn't care wether there is a God or not, it just tries to explain the universe in its own terms. God doesn't factor into, neither positivly or negativly.

Thats not quite true. Science doesn't care wether there is a God or not, it just tries to explain the universe in its own terms. God doesn't factor into, neither positivly or negativly.

Exactly. That's what I said. The existence or non-existence of God is of no consequence to science.

Maybe you did... I might have focused overly on the
Science assumes that there is no God
bit.

Maybe you did... I might have focused overly on the

bit.

Yeah, all I meant by that is that it doesn't matter, therefore it is assumed to not be there. It is kind of like assuming steady-flow when all you want is steady-flow. Yeah, there may be unsteady flow at some point, but you're not looking for that, you're only looking for the steady solution.

Six days is a lot shorter then the 4 1/2 some billion years that carbon dating suggests life existed.

Radiometric dating. Not Carbon dating. Carbon dating only works up to 50,000 years. Different methods have been used to ascertain the age of the Earth. I can't remember the names of any of them off-hand, and I want to say Potassium-Argon Dating, but I'm pretty sure it isn't that.

It's nothing but a hypothesis, not a theory.
It's only basis is in Darwin's twisted ideas and has only survived due to secularist agenda.
EXCUSE ME? Do you read what you're typing? My first point is that there is no "secularist agenda". That is exactly the same as saying "liberal media" or claiming that there is a conspiracy of Jews trying to keep the Gentile man down. In other words, you're a bigoted ass. Second, it is a theory. A hypothesis is an experiment that has never been attempted or has not been attempted enough to be conclusively proved. A theory is something like evolution-it has passed the rigorous tests of the scientific community, people far more intelligent than you, for the last two hundred years. Third, let me give you all a quote from everyone's favorite philosopher Nietzsche, from his book "The Antichrist" which explains how being Christian is amoral:
"What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
What is more harmful than any vice?--Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak--Christianity..."
The book goes on to systematically destroy any arguments you might have. Try it on for size. Fourth, how can you justify a belief in a merciful god? Look at the world. Look at Rwanda, at the Holocaust, at Darfur and at AIDS. How can you claim that a benevolent being looks down on us and protects us? How can you believe in a god who would allow such atrocities to happen in his name? From the crusades to the "final solution", from Manifest Destiny to the "re-education" of Native Americans, Christianity and the name of your wretched god has been invoked to justify the worst atrocities in human history.

Let's remember of course that the theory of evolution is only a theory. Theories by definition are made to be modified. The theory of evolution has been modified many times. And we know the scientists have been wrong before. After all, they're only human.

Ok, so if we were not deliberately created then why are we here? The Bible says we are here to emulate God's righteousness in the world and enjoy his gifts. But in evolution why are we here? Why should we care what we do? What is the purpose for law and order at all? If we're essentially apes then why should we treat each other with any more respect then apes do. We can growl and swing from trees and eat bannanas. The difference between us and apes is that we have free will, we can choose what we do and what we say. Animals live off of instincts. (Oh, and a side note, where did they get them?) If in fact we are all still apes the Oooh Oooh Ahh Ahh to you then.

Let's remember of course that the theory of evolution is only a theory. Theories by definition are made to be modified. The theory of evolution has been modified many times. And we know the scientists have been wrong before. After all, they're only human.

Ok, so if we were not deliberately created then why are we here? The Bible says we are here to emulate God's righteousness in the world and enjoy his gifts. But in evolution why are we here? Why should we care what we do? What is the purpose for law and order at all? If we're essentially apes then why should we treat each other with any more respect then apes do. We can growl and swing from trees and eat bannanas. The difference between us and apes is that we have free will, we can choose what we do and what we say. Animals live off of instincts. (Oh, and a side note, where did they get them?) If in fact we are all still apes the Oooh Oooh Ahh Ahh to you then.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CA
Numbers:
CA100
CA201
CA202
CA250
CA620
CA630
CB400
CB401
CB430

Come up with something new.

Let's remember of course that the theory of evolution is only a theory. Theories by definition are made to be modified. The theory of evolution has been modified many times. And we know the scientists have been wrong before. After all, they're only human.

Ok, so if we were not deliberately created then why are we here? The Bible says we are here to emulate God's righteousness in the world and enjoy his gifts. But in evolution why are we here? Why should we care what we do? What is the purpose for law and order at all? If we're essentially apes then why should we treat each other with any more respect then apes do. We can growl and swing from trees and eat bannanas. The difference between us and apes is that we have free will, we can choose what we do and what we say. Animals live off of instincts. (Oh, and a side note, where did they get them?) If in fact we are all still apes the Oooh Oooh Ahh Ahh to you then.
if you need the parenting of an imaginary friend to give your life meaning, then you have my deepest sympathy.

Let's remember of course that the theory of evolution is only a theory. Theories by definition are made to be modified. The theory of evolution has been modified many times. And we know the scientists have been wrong before. After all, they're only human.

Ok, so if we were not deliberately created then why are we here? The Bible says we are here to emulate God's righteousness in the world and enjoy his gifts. But in evolution why are we here? Why should we care what we do? What is the purpose for law and order at all? If we're essentially apes then why should we treat each other with any more respect then apes do. We can growl and swing from trees and eat bannanas. The difference between us and apes is that we have free will, we can choose what we do and what we say. Animals live off of instincts. (Oh, and a side note, where did they get them?) If in fact we are all still apes the Oooh Oooh Ahh Ahh to you then.

Our lives:
We eat, interact socially, defecate, gather food, breed and die... How are we different from animals?

Let's remember of course that the theory of evolution is only a theory.

You have no idea what a scientific theory is. A theory is a hypothesis about how an observed fact happens that has been tested repeatedly until it is, for all intents and purposes, correct.

That evolution happened is a fact.
That all living things diversified from a common ancestor is a fact.
That evolution happens because of natural selection operating on random mutations is a theory.

Before you start attacking science, learn the terminology.