You have yet to explain how.

~Zoo

Simple! By the law of equal and opposite reactions. The law states that only the fittest (strongest) survive, so the opposite reaction is that it is a weak theory.

Nope. How are bunnnies cute? It sure ain't evolutionary. Why don't they have weapons?

They do - it is being rabbits! They breed like - well rabbits!

High-five on agreeing on something!

Seriously though, you cannot present evidence that we were created. You can only present evidence that we did not come about through evolution. That's why evolution is the scientific theory, and creation is the philosophical theory. One is verifiable and the other isn't.

That being said, I think there is some strong evidence against life coming into existence on its own. There is also strong evidence that there are many creatures from differing time periods that look a bit like each other, and seem to lead into the next creature. I don't know the reliability of that evidence. I also don't know how time worked in the Garden of Eden. But I haven't seen anything current to support that a species can change so much as to not be able to breed with prior members of it's species. There is evidence that they wouldn't WANT to, or would avoid doing it (after all, if you're equipped to live in cold weather, and another section of your species is equipped for warmer weather, you probably won't meet them anyway, and if you did, you would feel that the cold-weather ones are more suited to you anyway). But I haven't seen a case where it wasn't possible to breed them. Maybe there is one.

I believe in micro-evolution, the changing within a species that enables the species to thrive based on the environment.

As far as I know evolution is a theory only because we are where we are with what we know about it.



So, then what don't you believe in? Are you of the ignorant breed that truly think we "came from monkeys"? I pray it isn't so.

I believe we were created by God.

Then why not believe that evolution is your God's tool? If he's powerful, wouldn't that make sense? Why be opposed to it? To me, for *some* of you Christian's to claim that evolution is not God's will, or whatever, is to be arrogant. And to, ironically, be wrong, because you assume you know what God's plan/tools are.

That or it's just ignorance.

Because in the Bible, which is God's word (and God doesn't lie) it says that He created the animals, and they reproduced, each according to it's kind. Not each making a new kind. So that's how I come to the conclusion that evolution was not God's tool. How is it being arrogant when we're looking to what God told us?

If he's powerful, which he is, ANYTHING makes sense, because ANYTHING is possible with God. Which would include both evolution, or being created out of the dust of the earth, or the entire Universe popping into existence 2 seconds ago with memories of all this stuff happening created directly into our heads. But the Bible which describes this God who is all-powerful also alludes to evolution not being it. It doesn't allude to the 2 seconds ago theory either. It alludes to all beings being created by God himself.

If God made us evolve, he still made us.  

 

Heh, puns.

Actually, that's not even within the confines of evolution. Evolution starts with life and progresses to new forms of life. 

Abiogenesis is what you take issue with.  Which is the rising of life from nonlife.  You see evolution has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the creation of the first life form, but from there onward explains how species diversify and arise.   Abiogenesis is the idea behind the ever so popular phrase that creationists whip out "lightning striking a mud puddle."  It doesn't help one's arguments when they can't distinguish between two completely different theories.  It also essentially nullifies many of the arguments creationists have.

In a debate about evolution, nothing about the first life is relevant, nothing about the universe arising is relevant.  That basically kills all disputes in a creationist argument.  Any other questions are easily answered by physiology and genetics.

~Zoo

This is true. But the Bible says 'each according to its kind' so it doesn't matter.

It also says we were made from the dust of the earth, not from monkeys.

"And God saw some monkeys lying around and said, "Lo! I will give thee greater intelligence over a period of many eons and slowly transform you into a human using random mutations, some of which will just kill more monkey-humans, others which will cause the monkeyness to fade to humaness. But there will only be two of you when I come back to visit in the next paragraph, be sure to name them Adam and Eve, monkey-human parents."

Right on!

Anyway, Eve was created from Adam's rib, not a monkey.

And when I say monkey, know I don't mean an actual today monkey, but whatever monkey-ape creature that evolutionists think we may have come from.

If you don't believe the Bible is true, which is a valid belief of course, then it doesn't matter what it says. But since I do, I'm just trying to show you where my frame of reference is coming from. That's why, even though God could have used evolution as his tool, He didn't.

You never say what "kind" means, though. Kind can be very subjective. Could be as general as animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, protists or as specific as Siamese cat or golden retriever.

I could go on about the technical aspects...but I'll leave it alone at that.

By the way, "Adam and Eve" aren't really names...they're derivatives meaning "dust; mankind" and "living one" respectively.

In Bioshock, however, ADAM is used to increase your baseline abilities and Eve is used to replenish your ability to use plasmids.

~Zoo

In MGS3, Adam and Eva are code names for double agents. Close enough, right?



I figure, since evolution goes back to protozoans and comes all the way up to humans, we can make the leap that protozoans are a different kind than humans.



Everything in the Bible is a derivative. Was Jesus actually called 'Jesus'? I doubt it, as they were speaking a different language. I've heard from EoIC that it's a title anyway, Jesus Christ. So what? God knows who I mean. The guy in the Bible (which means 'Book'). A lot of names in the Bible list a meaning to go with it, especially place names.

"And lo! he came upon a field with a rock in it. And he called it Stonepasture, which means 'field with a rock in it'." The Bible is full of stuff like that. But it makes me wonder, every time, whether it was named Stonepasture because that's what it meant, or if it means field with a rock in it because the first usage of the word Stonepasture was connected to a field with a rock in it.

Does Adam mean 'dust; mankind' because that's what it means, or because it's connected with the first man who came from dust?

In conclusion, Global Warming is caused by playing too much Bioshock.

Global Warming is kinda like Global Cooling. It just does the opposite.

It's now Global Climate Change. Just in case it starts cooling down again.

"How do you do that on a Mac?"

"do it like you do on a PC, but in the Mac way."

Probably means that and describes the character as well. Much like if you read Native American legends, they insert the English meaning instead of the super hard to pronounce words of their language. Like Spider Woman or White Buffalo Lady...stuff like that.

All religions have commonality. Unless it's that crazy Scientology stuff...that's just a scam.

~Zoo

Spider pig, spider pig...

Curse you! I hated that movie and refuse to laugh (teehee).

I think the story of Noah proves that God used evolution. If God created all life each according to it's kind, why would he need Noah to build an ark? Just recreate the animals after the flood. It's because Noah would have starved to death waiting on evolution that's why. 

 

What?! You're kidding me, it was a great movie. Granted the humor in it was a tad juvenile, but still, it makes me feel smarter.

Yea, my son loved it too. Just say my sense of humor goes more high brow - like the Three Stooges.

I think that Global Warming is a bunch of crap, to tell you the truth.