Creation vs Evolution

**Ser Clegane** · 06-16-2006, 16:49

Originally Posted by crossroad

God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

**crossroad** · 06-16-2006, 18:19

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?

I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

**rory_20_uk** · 06-16-2006, 18:25

Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required!

**_Martyr_** · 06-16-2006, 18:30

I feel the need to point out that the Spaghetti Monster does not take too kindly to this false God you speak of that supposedly created the universe... if you want to find the truth, look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

**Lemur** · 06-16-2006, 18:37

Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.

Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?

**_Martyr_** · 06-16-2006, 18:48

Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.

**crossroad** · 06-16-2006, 19:34

Originally Posted by Lemur

Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.

Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?

I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation. The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.

**rory_20_uk** · 06-16-2006, 19:38

Originally Posted by crossroad

The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.

That again is based on faith. To be able to use a few bones to detect the nuances of evolution is going to be extremely difficult.

New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.

**Lemur** · 06-16-2006, 19:43

Originally Posted by crossroad

I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation.

Not quite sure I follow your distinction. Evolution is demonstrable among bacteria and viruses. If it were not, a lot of drug makers would be out of business, and microbiology would be a very boring field indeed.

Are you drawing a distinction between adaptation and evolution? I would like to follow your reasoning, but you may need to connect some dots for a lemur ...

**crossroad** · 06-16-2006, 19:24

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required!

Its called permissive will.

**Ser Clegane** · 06-17-2006, 07:48

Originally Posted by crossroad

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?

I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

Actually you are already "putting Him in a box" by saying that he certainly didn't use "macro-evolution".
Interestingly you dismiss evolution (for which you say no evidence exists) but apparently accept any other way of "creation" that God might have chosen, although you have not evidence for that either.

Originally Posted by crossroad

The improbiblity of a human eye evolving...

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

**Duke of Gloucester** · 06-17-2006, 08:10

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

Very true. Creationist also tend to be biblical fundamentalists so see evolution as a threat to scripture. They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [B]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

**Ser Clegane** · 06-17-2006, 08:44

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [b]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

Good point - dogmatic thinking (regardless of its nature) rarely leads to enlightenment.

**Divinus Arma** · 06-17-2006, 08:16

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

Exactly. Crap-appears-out-of-nothing method. Like a damn magician. I think science and evolutiuon would be MORE bad ass for the Lord! Any second rate God can pull a rabbit out his hat. This one happens to take a billion years and 40 versions to do it! lolol!

(What would we do without proof of the saber tooth jackrabbit?)

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

ya.what he said. cause the earth was born yesterday from a divine fart.