[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Well, if that is true then why is organic evolution always attempting to give their "scientific" take on origins? Many who subscribe to evolution very often scoff at the idea that God created everything. They much prefer the idea that the whole universe and beyond came from matter too small to detect without a microscope. Time is also very essential to evolution. Thus explaining why each year they are adding more and more billions of years to the "beginning". Some people might argue that evolution means this or that, but the big picture is very easy to see. I suggest to you that adaptation is not the big picture in the evolution hypothesis. There perhaps, is a far more dare I say sinister plan. Please do not bite my head off for my opinion, this is a very important topic to many as I have seen here. I suspect a very important topic for various reasons I might add.

[balrog666]

Well, if that is true then why is organic evolution always attempting to give their "scientific" take on origins?

You mean, why would most scientists look to a scientific explanation for such origins?

Many who subscribe to evolution very often scoff at the idea that God created everything.

I would dispute the "many". And could it be because some people scoff at the idea that God created anything?

[Virginia-American]

Time is also very essential to evolution. Thus explaining why each year they are adding more and more billions of years to the "beginning".

The estimates of the age of the universe have been made by astronomers. Please show where any biologist had any influence on this at all.

The estimated age of the earth hasn't changed very much, has it? A few months ago there was a thread about a new estimate in the third decimal place.

But, a couple of billion years of prokaryote-only, followed by about half a billion of mixed prokaryote and eukaryote has been known for many years. It's what I was taught in school in the '50s, and it's still considered true