Creation vs Evolution

[Lords Gym]

"I see dead people" ! i better put this stuff down !

[Kev]

I was raised in a Methodist home and married a Catholic. I have also been extremely turned off by organized religion for the better part of my life. I think there are two absolutes in this discussion

1. I don't know how you can deny that there had to be at least some intelligent design in the creation of the universe. I think if your going to take creation as your story then you should look at it more like a dominoe chain that has been set in motion. Where the creation of Earth and Man are way down the line of dominoes. I really don't see much difference in taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and believeing in Greek mythology. On the flip side I think its pretty arrogant and absurd for finite beings such as ourselves to even attempt to quantify and fathom an infinite concept such as "god"

2. I think people should take a broader view of evolution. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes I don't think you can deny the overall evolution of human beings. We are bigger, faster, stronger, live longer, live in every environment on the planet and beyond etc. Do I need to even list the social evolution aspects.

So I think the answer is somewhere in between. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools as long as students understand it is simply a theory and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

Hey Van Childs,

Some interesting questions you pose, I'll try and answer them.

I completely agree with you that it is impossible for finite man to ever come to an understanding of how the world came to be. We are literally like fish in a bowl trying to fathom out what we can see beyond our fish tank.'There is no water outside the tank one fish might say, 'Impossible says another, how can they breathe there has to be water!

As regarding it making no difference whether you belive in biblical creation or Greek mythology however I would say it makes a big difference. Firstly if life existed and lived and died before Adam it makes a mockery of the entire doctrine of Sin.

According to the Bible, death and decay entered this world as a direct consequence of Adam's trangression. The curse that God put on Adam was to affect all life and all generations of humans, thus as Adam's descendents we share in his curse. Christ came as the second Adam, the perfect son of Man and of God to take the punishment of the first Adam and so to redeem mankind.

If the first Adam was a myth then Jesus' mission makes no sense whatsoever, there is no such thing as sin, death not only has always been but it is actually the process through which God created the world, a horrible horrible picture.

Secondly in response to your next question, mankind actually is not really getting stronger and fitter, at least not as a result of evolution.

We in the Western world tend to think of ourselves only when considering the state of the world and so see our own improved living conditions, better diet, medical knowledge etc as being somehow world wide but I assure you it is not.

In many parts of the world infant mortality is as high as it's ever been, people die of starvation and disease every single day. The average lifespan of many in Africa is less than that of high class citizens of Ancient Greece.

Also fossil remains, as evolutionist understand them contradict this theory. The Neandertal man skeleton, incidentally now classified as human by all evolutionists have far thicker, stronger bones than ourselves. They were a lot more muscular and athletic.

Furthermore the cranial capaticty of their skulls, (indicating intelligence) is significantly larger than modern humans alive today. Neandertal man according to evolutionary assumptions was smater than ourselves!

It is also interesting that Dr Jack Cuozzo an orthodontist and leading pathology anthropologist who has examined more original neandertal man skeletons than nearly anyone else has provided some shocking evidence regarding the peculiar skeletal features in a neandertal skull.

Modern science has revealed that the bones in the human face keep growing until a person dies. Cuozzo used computers and advanced algorithams to see what would happen to a mans face if that person lived for say 300 years rather than 70. Amazingly the resulting morphology would look exactly like a neandertal skull, indicating that it is possible that these neandertal humans actually look the way they do because they were around 300 years old at the time of death!

This is in complete harmony with the Bible who records Shem, Ham and Japeth, Noah's sons living for around 250 and 300 years after the flood.

That such ages might seem impossible is actually a myth. When you look at the fossil record ALL creatures were much larger than they are today. We think of dinosaurs being too huge for mankind living alongside them but fossil remains show deer 7 ft tall at the shoulder with head being 9-10 ft above the ground and with antler 12 feet across. Pigs grew to the size of cattle, rhino's grew to be 17 ft tall! Sloths' were as big as a house, cockroaches 2 ft in length, millipides 6 ft long, dragon flies had 4 ft wingspans!

These are all well documented fossil finds, and none of these creatures could possibly get to that size today as the atmosphere simply does not allow it. Yet we can see from the fossil record that they really did get this big back then. No wonder the bible says of the time before the flood 'There were giant's on the earth in those days', !

Why have I brought this up though? Simple because creatures to get to this size would have had to live extremely long lives! The largest crocodiles today grow to about 20 ft in length and it takes them 100 years to get that big, they keep growing their entire life. The fossil record shows crocodiles 50 ft long! That would take 250 years or more to grow to that size!

Imagine how much longer a dinosaur such as the giant sauropod's would take to reach their massive sizes?

So you see, it is abosultely proven beyond doubt that many species of animals alive today, lived for far longer and grew much beigger than they do today, kind of the reverse of your theory of everything living longer and being stronger now.

Neandertal man provides strong evidence that ancient man also shared in this long life.

If you are interested in the creation evolution debate I urge you to really look into and examine closely the problems associated with evolution.

[luvfightgame]

I agree with the hobbit!!!

In addition you have to understand that organized religion often replaces the true message of the Gospel. It is not intended to be a set of rules that if you follow you will get to heaven. There is one message consistent throughout the entire Bible, and that is grace. You can't earn a gift, you have to simply accept it.

As far as teaching evolution, they do and I don't have a problem with teaching a theory as long as it's clear that it is a theory, and you don't use blatant lies to support your position. Sadly if you remove the lies, there is nothing left of that theory.....

Also it is presented as if it were a fact that "religious" people just won't accept. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Gandalf]

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way!

Interesting thread, Bilbo

[Kev]

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way!

Interesting thread, Bilbo

Hey Miles back, finally got someone who disagrees and so somebody to fence intellectually with

As regards to your claims that the evidence supports evolution I would refute that completely. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is merely to ask you to provide us with the evidence.

If you don't mind I'll ask you some simple questions that should obviously have clear and straight forward answers to and you can go and fetch the answers. I personally think you will be suprised.

1) The Fossil Record.

You seem to believe that the fossil record is supportive of evolution. I would really love to see you demonstrate this.

As evolution occurs at an incredibly slow rate over literally millions of years then the fossil record should clearly demonstrate the slow and gradual transition from one species into another.

So my first challenge is to find a transitional fossil, ie a a fossil that clearly and demonstrabley shows one kind of creature gradually evolving into another.

Now before you mention the Archaeopteryx, remember that all evolutionists classify it as 100% bird with some peculiar reptilian features, teeth for example and a three fingered wrist similiar to some of the later dinosoaurs such as belong to members of the raptor family. Nobody now believes this creature was half bird half reptile so despite it having peculiar features it does not qualify as a missing link.

Remember that a gradual theory of evolution should actually produce more transitional fossil than complete species as it such a gradual process with literally millions of years seperating a species from it's supposed ancestor. Why are there massive gaps, and for every single species of animal on the planet?

Actually many evolutionists have now recognised this problem, most prominantly Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Their puncuated equilibriam theory states that actually a species doesn't evolve gradually over millions of years but rather stays unchanged for millions of years then in some isolated population a series of rapid mutations take place and the resulting rapid evolution will result in new species very rapidly in the 10's of thousands rather than millions of years. As this happens in isolated populations then of course they will leave no fossils. A nice way to explain why the fossile record is completely non-supportive of evolution!


This has led to criticisms from the other evolutionary branches who argue that such rapid change resulting from mutation is impossible, considering what we now know about DNA. The equilibruists likewise counter that gradual and continuous evolution, tiny incremental changes at a uniform rate throughout history is also impossible because the fossil record disproves this.


This leads on nicely to my second point. We know as you pointed exactly how we are made literally, through our DNA. We understand that for evolution to occur at all it must be at the molecular level, something not understood by Darwin, Huxley and others when Darwinism was introduced.

In order for example for a species such as a dog to grow wings, there has to be new information added to the DNA and genetic code. Without this information you simply cannot ever have a dog producing wings. It's like coding a video game and expecting to race cars when the game is actually a medival sword game. Now matter how many times you run the game, you will never come across a car unless somebody subsequently codes it into the game.

Now lets consider this in more detail. For evolution to work at all it HAS to work at the molecular level. This means that somehow new information must get into the genetic code.

According to evolutionists this method is achieved through random mutatations, literally copying errors. I will not bore you by citing the probability calculations that have been done which completely put this in the realms of the absolutely impossible, something a long the lines of winning the lottery several million times in a row, all that is irrelevent here.

As you seem to know that there is evidence to support that random mutations can lead to an INCREASE of information withing a species that is actually BENEFICIAL rather than LETHAL to that organism I challenge you to find a SINGLE example.

Just one observed mutation in a species that led to new information being added that subsequently benefitted that organism will convince me.

As evolution is clearly true and it occurs at the molecular level and ALL OF LIFE has evolved through random mutations alone, I would make that around an infinite number of mutatations that must have taken place!

Find one!


Finally to say there is little evidence to suggest man lived contempary with dinosuars, it depends what you regard as evidence. The fossil record is irrelevent here as what you are saying is that according to your evolutionary understanding of uniformitarianism different rock strata represent millions of years and dinosaurs are buried in rocks millions of years older. However if the principle of uniforitarianism is not in fact true then the rock strata's have nothing to do with geological age and so the fossil record becomes irrelevent.

So we need to put aside both of our world views for a moment and decide to look for independent evidence that is not subject to our own particular beliefs.


For me for there to be convincing evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together I would need to see evidence of the following.

1) Folklore and a collective consciousness of such animals that clearly resemble dinosaurs. This concsiousness would need to be evident in a diverse human population across time and amongst different races, and the descriptions of such creatures should all share many commonalities to increase the likelyhood that tales were based on a shared experience of seeing similar creatures.

2) Such creatures, when described in written detail should clearly resemble dinosaurs as reconstructed by modern paleontologists.

3) There should be paintings, drawings, carvings etc of these creatures and they should look like dinosaurs as we understand them.


I would say that all three of the proof's necessary for belief that man and dinosaurs co-existed are abundant and found in virtually all races.

We all know that dragon legends abound amongst every race and tribe that has virtually ever exisited and left any traces of their civilisation. The word dragon occurs 13 times in the bible. Of course the word dinosaur does not, seeing as the word was first coined in the early 1800's by Sir Richard Owen.

Below are a few examples I have found on the net illustrating clearly the similarity between 'dragons' and modern dinosaurs......


This 'Stegasaurus' like creature is carved into a stone pillar belonging to one of the ruined temples of Ankgor Wat, built over 900 years ago


Here is a sauropod painted in a cave by anasazi indians between the fith and fourteenth centruries.




This is a very famous Roman mosaic dating 200 AD



This brass depiction of sauropods is engrave upon the tomb of the Bishop of Carlise Richard Bell who died in 1496!



Considering no man ever saw any of these creatures or even knew of their existence I think you will agree that the ancients did a pretty good job of imagining them!

Every animal in each of these pictures is instantly and immediately recognisable to us a known species of dinosuar.

That each of these paintings, engravings are as old as claimed to be is not disputed by ayone even evolutionists.

I guess you need to make up your own mind, but to me this is more valuble evidence than looking at a layer of rock strata.

[VictorCharlie]

I was raised in a Methodist home and married a Catholic. I have also been extremely turned off by organized religion for the better part of my life. I think there are two absolutes in this discussion

1. I don't know how you can deny that there had to be at least some intelligent design in the creation of the universe. I think if your going to take creation as your story then you should look at it more like a dominoe chain that has been set in motion. Where the creation of Earth and Man are way down the line of dominoes. I really don't see much difference in taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and believeing in Greek mythology. On the flip side I think its pretty arrogant and absurd for finite beings such as ourselves to even attempt to quantify and fathom an infinite concept such as "god"

2. I think people should take a broader view of evolution. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes I don't think you can deny the overall evolution of human beings. We are bigger, faster, stronger, live longer, live in every environment on the planet and beyond etc. Do I need to even list the social evolution aspects.

So I think the answer is somewhere in between. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools as long as students understand it is simply a theory and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

Hey Van Childs,

Some interesting questions you pose, I'll try and answer them.

I completely agree with you that it is impossible for finite man to ever come to an understanding of how the world came to be. We are literally like fish in a bowl trying to fathom out what we can see beyond our fish tank.'There is no water outside the tank one fish might say, 'Impossible says another, how can they breathe there has to be water!

As regarding it making no difference whether you belive in biblical creation or Greek mythology however I would say it makes a big difference. Firstly if life existed and lived and died before Adam it makes a mockery of the entire doctrine of Sin.

According to the Bible, death and decay entered this world as a direct consequence of Adam's trangression. The curse that God put on Adam was to affect all life and all generations of humans, thus as Adam's descendents we share in his curse. Christ came as the second Adam, the perfect son of Man and of God to take the punishment of the first Adam and so to redeem mankind.

If the first Adam was a myth then Jesus' mission makes no sense whatsoever, there is no such thing as sin, death not only has always been but it is actually the process through which God created the world, a horrible horrible picture.

Secondly in response to your next question, mankind actually is not really getting stronger and fitter, at least not as a result of evolution.

We in the Western world tend to think of ourselves only when considering the state of the world and so see our own improved living conditions, better diet, medical knowledge etc as being somehow world wide but I assure you it is not.

In many parts of the world infant mortality is as high as it's ever been, people die of starvation and disease every single day. The average lifespan of many in Africa is less than that of high class citizens of Ancient Greece.

Also fossil remains, as evolutionist understand them contradict this theory. The Neandertal man skeleton, incidentally now classified as human by all evolutionists have far thicker, stronger bones than ourselves. They were a lot more muscular and athletic.

Furthermore the cranial capaticty of their skulls, (indicating intelligence) is significantly larger than modern humans alive today. Neandertal man according to evolutionary assumptions was smater than ourselves!

It is also interesting that Dr Jack Cuozzo an orthodontist and leading pathology anthropologist who has examined more original neandertal man skeletons than nearly anyone else has provided some shocking evidence regarding the peculiar skeletal features in a neandertal skull.

Modern science has revealed that the bones in the human face keep growing until a person dies. Cuozzo used computers and advanced algorithams to see what would happen to a mans face if that person lived for say 300 years rather than 70. Amazingly the resulting morphology would look exactly like a neandertal skull, indicating that it is possible that these neandertal humans actually look the way they do because they were around 300 years old at the time of death!

This is in complete harmony with the Bible who records Shem, Ham and Japeth, Noah's sons living for around 250 and 300 years after the flood.

That such ages might seem impossible is actually a myth. When you look at the fossil record ALL creatures were much larger than they are today. We think of dinosaurs being too huge for mankind living alongside them but fossil remains show deer 7 ft tall at the shoulder with head being 9-10 ft above the ground and with antler 12 feet across. Pigs grew to the size of cattle, rhino's grew to be 17 ft tall! Sloths' were as big as a house, cockroaches 2 ft in length, millipides 6 ft long, dragon flies had 4 ft wingspans!

These are all well documented fossil finds, and none of these creatures could possibly get to that size today as the atmosphere simply does not allow it. Yet we can see from the fossil record that they really did get this big back then. No wonder the bible says of the time before the flood 'There were giant's on the earth in those days', !

Why have I brought this up though? Simple because creatures to get to this size would have had to live extremely long lives! The largest crocodiles today grow to about 20 ft in length and it takes them 100 years to get that big, they keep growing their entire life. The fossil record shows crocodiles 50 ft long! That would take 250 years or more to grow to that size!

Imagine how much longer a dinosaur such as the giant sauropod's would take to reach their massive sizes?

So you see, it is abosultely proven beyond doubt that many species of animals alive today, lived for far longer and grew much beigger than they do today, kind of the reverse of your theory of everything living longer and being stronger now.

Neandertal man provides strong evidence that ancient man also shared in this long life.

If you are interested in the creation evolution debate I urge you to really look into and examine closely the problems associated with evolution.

Allright for starters lets throw the Bible out of the conversation. It's kind of like historical movies...Based on a true story....Every culture has formed creation stories to explain things the Bible just happens to be the best seller. I'm not going to pretend to have even close to a grasp on paleontology/anthropolgy that you have. That being said it has been my experience that each camp has their "facts" that they use to support their claims. I'm pretty sure a hardcore catholic biologist and athiest anthropologist could bounce contradicting facts off each other all day. I personally have never seen any information that shows a evolutionary trail from ape to man, but I dont think prehistoric man looked joe shmoe either. But I stand by my statement that man has obviously evolved. To me bringing up the state of affairs in third world countries like the continent of Africa could simply support a survival of the fittest theory. Maybe I misunderstood your post but it seemed that you were saying that man has changed over the eons.(age, bone density etc that you mentioned) So regardless of whether we are evolving or regressing it seems that man has gone under some changes. My reference to bigger, stronger, live longer etc was concening only the time span of recordable history. So regardless of where Man started in regards to avg height, weight, strength, speed, stamina, lifespan etc for the past several thousand years all of these things have been on a slow increase. More importantly I'd like to see cromagnum man beat reggie bush in the 40yd dash I also find it interesting that creationist never seem to have an answer to the social evolution of man. I'm pretty sure prehistoric man wasn't discussing the contrasts between a capitalist and communist society. These things took a evolution of thought. Ok I'm done you can pick this post apart now.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

creationists and intelligent design. I see no intelligence exhibited here, apart from AdamGB. Ironic.

I thought the funny 'nouk threads had died out but here we are with several mentals speaking out in favour of the bible.

[luvfightgame]

Interesting comments by all!!!

Hopefully mine can add to this...

In regards to Miles... Your statements saying the creation theory is based upon religious writings is a little off. You are lumping the "theory" with the "stories". Yes many believe in creation based upon the stories as told in the Bible or other theological writings. However the theory is the next best explanation when you eliminate the other possibilities. There are many who believe in creation that don't hold to any religious teaching. As Bilbo explained there is 0 evidence that evolution takes place. There are several meanings of the word "evolution" and the proponents of it will use evidence of adaptations within a species, and then say that this proves that the species can change to a different species. Virtually ALL of the physical laws of nature as we know them rule out the possibility of evolution. The very first law of thermodynamics is that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" if that is the case where did the matter to create the universe come from?? It also states that although energy can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this, and that natural processes cannot create energy.
Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. If natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (living) portion.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

[Munkymagic]

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.

[Munkymagic]

What i wrote might upset a few people. Sorry...i was in b*stard mode!

Not really sure what to believe to be honest.

[Gandalf]

Interesting comments by all!!!

Hopefully mine can add to this...

In regards to Miles... Your statements saying the creation theory is based upon religious writings is a little off. You are lumping the "theory" with the "stories". Yes many believe in creation based upon the stories as told in the Bible or other theological writings. However the theory is the next best explanation when you eliminate the other possibilities. There are many who believe in creation that don't hold to any religious teaching. As Bilbo explained there is 0 evidence that evolution takes place. There are several meanings of the word "evolution" and the proponents of it will use evidence of adaptations within a species, and then say that this proves that the species can change to a different species. Virtually ALL of the physical laws of nature as we know them rule out the possibility of evolution. The very first law of thermodynamics is that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" if that is the case where did the matter to create the universe come from?? It also states that although energy can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this, and that natural processes cannot create energy.
Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. If natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (living) portion.

I owe you and Bilbo good responses to your arguments. The only downer in this is that you will have to wait about 10 days. Im going home to England tomorrow and wont have access to my computer. But I can assure you I will be back and posting. I think this is an interesting thread. Open to all sorts of angles and interpretations. In the short time I have this evening im going to stick to my usual banal posting on the boxing boards!! :P

, for your contributions here though

[Gandalf]

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

I agree with you Missy in your belief in evolutionism. I support it too, but it must be remembered that it is just a theory, as is creationism.

[Gandalf]

What i wrote might upset a few people. Sorry...i was in b*stard mode!

Not really sure what to believe to be honest.

What you said wasnt so much upsetting, but perhaps a little lacking in tact!

I kind of agree with what you said. I myself see no need for organised religion in my life. I have no real convictions of any higher divine judiciary. I take more of my ideas from the existentialism of Satre and Camus. Im particularly fond of Albert Camus "The myth of sisyphus". Its a difficult book to read but well worth the effort. We can make our own reasons for existing...

[Howlin Mad Missy]

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

I agree with you Missy in your belief in evolutionism. I support it too, but it must be remembered that it is just a theory, as is creationism.

So is gravity but I don't jump out of a tree expecting to fly.