Replies

I believe, and will continue to believe until it has been proved beyond any doubt, that God created human beings as fully formed, functioning human beings.

The part that confuses me is, why is this necessary? Why does it matter the method God used in His creation?

People have posed long and involved discussions on the complexity of life and DNA, and posited that it just simply could not have arose from mere Darwinian "survival of the fittest" evolution. But that should only make Christians even more in awe of God. That He took a mere collection of molecules and arranged them in such an order that after 2-3 billion years they would produce humanity. Just think of the odds of that! Yet God did it.

Thinking that God merely snapped his fingers or waved his wand and Adam just appeared, just simply does not inspire awe for me. But that He spent all that time, arranging for humanity to evolve through uncounted stages of life, now THAT is impressive.

The part that confuses me is, why is this necessary? Why does it matter the method God used in His creation?

People have posed long and involved discussions on the complexity of life and DNA, and posited that it just simply could not have arose from mere Darwinian "survival of the fittest" evolution. But that should only make Christians even more in awe of God. That He took a mere collection of molecules and arranged them in such an order that after 2-3 billion years they would produce humanity. Just think of the odds of that!

The sheer improbability of it suggests divine intervention. For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility. If a divine plan isn't being followed there, then that was a really foolish gamble on God's part. There is more than enough ample room for God and evolution to co-exist.

I've been browsing these evo threads since first coming to FR. It's been a funny and sometimes sad ride. Some of the faces have changed in the debates, but the debates, if you could call it that, have pretty much remained the same. In a nutshell:

1. Creationist says evolution is flawed because of A.
2. Evolutionist explains A and provides reference links.
3. Creationist never reads link, ignores explanation, and continues with assumption.
4. Repeat ad nauseum.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

Wasn't it around the twelfth century that certain factions in the middle east ceased the scientific process because it went against religious scripture? That really did the future of their people wonders. If Kansas has their way, the picture and sentiment in post #2 might not be too far off.