They are kept separate, because they are like OIL and water, they do not mix. -Aric
Evolution is illogical, and is not based on real science. It is based on an atheistic/naturalistic worldview. First comes the worldview, then comes belief in evolution. Evolutionists say man evolved from chimps because the DNA is 97% similar. In logical terms, this would be stated: X is similar to Y in Z, therefore Y evolved from X. The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. It is an illogical conclusion (known as the Law of the Excluded Middle). Something that is illogical cannot be scientific.
Since Aric is not around right now, I'll try and come up with what I believe to be the answers. You asked him if a creator did not create the universe, than how did it come into being? The answer may surprise you coming from the scientific world: nobody knows for sure right now. However, there is much research being done, and many people refuse to fall into the trap of our ancestors and stop thinking about it and claim the work of a supernatural being. If this is really your unstoppable argument, than how did God come into being? You don't know either or you will give a vague, unscientific response such as "he has always been and does not operate in time". How lucky and fortunate of you to have an escape to the same questions you demand from the other side. There is very little that is scientific about the knowledge we have about the origins of the universe right now, almost like there is no scientific evidence of your theories. Science allows for an "I don't know yet". This has no real direct connection to evolution anyway.
If X is similar to Y in Z, then it is possible that X and Y came from similar origins. Not definite, but most definitely possible. It is a theory which holds a good amount of credibility, but is by no means certain. A theory is developed and further research is warranted. Scientifically (without religious bias) it is the best theory on the origin of species that we have today. Would you agree to any of this?
There are only 4 possible answers to the origins of the universe: It sprang from NOTHING (impossible since nothing cannot produce anything); it has existed eternally (impossible because of the dimension of "time" and "entropy" - the universe cannot "wind down" forever); it is an illusion (let's not even go there since this is an indefensible position); or, it was created by a creator out of nothing. Take your pick. Which is it?
If X is similar to Y in Z, then it is possible that X and Y came from similar origins. Not definite, but most definitely possible. It is a theory which holds a good amount of credibility, but is by no means certain.
I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. (By the way, you and Donh need to get together - he said no evolutionist ever made such a suggestion as this).
If it is not certain (and logically it is erroneous), then you take it on faith. So much for your statements about science...REAL science is about observation and repeatability, is it not? Based on the pathetic conclusion in the statement X and Y have a common ancestor, or X evolved from Y, I could just as easily conclude from the similarity that chimps evolved from humans!