Do you believe in Evolution or Not?

Agreed. But that doesn't mean it's the God of the Bible.

Well, any place in the galaxy or universe could be a perfect place for making those observations, our place isn't special. You could make those from a neighboring star, or even better observations from a binary star system. Just think how much better our observations would be if we were closer to a neighboring galaxy and we could see a big swirling mass just by looking up into the night night sky. See, there's better places we could be.

Why can't it be both?

Good question. Maybe it's because we killed off all of the other highly advanced species believing that they were the spawn of fallen angels. Or maybe we're not in fact all that highly advanced. Sure we have technology and the ability to learn and pass it on to future generations, but that's only the result of an advanced brain. If you were challenged to a feat of strength by a gorilla, you'd lose. If you were challenged to a race by a cheetah or a swimming match by a dolphin, you'd also lose.

Because the big ferocious dinosaurs died off in a mass extinction and only the smaller bird like dinosaurs survived. As for raptor becoming turkeys, I think you might be mistaken. The raptors evolved into a nine foot tall predatory ostrich-like animal that was killed off by early man.

It didn't happen abruptly, it was a very gradual change that occurred over millions of years. They adapted to a new environment and survived.

Because they survived.

Because humans originated in the African savannas around the equator. They didn't need hair.

...eh... only if their morons, and yes, there are moron atheists out there. If they're educated, they will give you answers. The answers are out there, just do some research.

Why not? If the life on earth can make small changes over a short period of time, why not large changes over a vast period of time? Certainly that wouldn't be beyond God?

Yeah, but it's a very logical conclusion.

But that IS evolution! It's just evolution on a smaller scale.

Why not? Millions of years is a long, long time.

Because it's ridiculous! Rejecting clear and precise evidence because it doesn't literally agree with a few words of a poetic metaphor in the first book of the Bible is just plain willful ignorance. It makes Christians look stupid and it's not helping the Christian cause.

I believe "Adam and Eve" is a metaphor for mankind and womankind. And the belief that woman was formed out of man's rib, it's kind of degrading to women. I would even argue that belief is what lead to the oppression of women that has been common in monotheistic cultures.

Because to God, who is eternal, there is no difference between the snap of a finger and a billion years.

We see nature, we observe nature (or God's handiwork, as you will). Nowhere in our observations has God ever just made something appear out of nothing. So why assume that He made the universe and world appear out of nothing?
Because the Bible says?

Once again, why is the Bible more the word of God then life itself?

I have read in the past that earth is in a very good spot for observing the universe...however, I forgot where I read it, so I will just drop that idea because I cannot provide any links. I do still stand by what I said about us not being at the center of the universe having nothing to do with whether we were created by God or not. Obviously the center of the universe is of no importance to God as it is to us. I have heard some people in the past say that the Bible claims earth is at the center of the universe, but it makes no such claims anywhere.

Just because we are similar to apes...doesn't automatically mean we descended from them.

Yes, obviously many animals have certain abilities that exceed ours...but you cannot deny how highly unique we are. We can do so many things that no animal could possibly do in a million years. If all life started as single celled organisms swimming around in goo, than why did only ONE get so advanced? Why wouldn't other species have evolved the ability to speak, or invent things, or build cities, or walk into Mcdonalds to order a Big Mac? Why only us? Why would evolution only favor ONE species out of millions? Especially considering that evolution teaches that we were nothing more than small rodents during the dinosaur age. Why would we rise up to become the most advanced and unique species on the planet? Now as I said, I'm only asking this question in regards to atheistic evolution. Obviously, if we're talking theistic evolution here, than the answer would be clear. To me...this question is strong evidence that supports a creator. It does not prove it was the God of the Bible, but it does strongly support the idea that we have an all powerful creator who had a plan for us.

This was apparently a recent revelation by the scientific community. Look it up on Google. They are now saying raptors evolved into the turkeys (or at least birds that were very similar to turkeys that went extinct).

I understand that it didn't happen abruptly. The question is...why did it happen? Why adapt to a new environment, when you are perfectly adapted to the one you are already in? Did evolution somehow know that there was all this land outside of the water, waiting to be explored?

But they didn't evolve. Why? Evolutionists teach that everything is always evolving. Why are there exceptions to the rule? Clearly humans have survived all this time, and evolutionists will say that we are still evolving.

Why do so many animals in that area have thick hair than? Only a few like Hippos and Elephants don't have very much...but most other animals from Africa are covered in it like most other mammals.

Of course it would not be beyond God...but neither would there being no evolution at all. The kind of evolution that takes millions of years (which some call "macro" evolution, has never been observed and cannot be observed since it takes so long. So why is something like that so accepted? Isn't that an example of faith right there? Scientists can never see evolution taking place with their own eyes, so all they can do is have faith that that's the way things are. Now I know you will probably say, "Evolution has been observed!" Yes, small changes and "adaptations" have been observed. But the animal that makes these changes is still the same type of animal it was before it made them. How do you know that animal will change into a completely different species after millions of years if there is no possible way to test the theory?

Well like I said...I personally lean more towards an old earth instead of a young earth. The early parts of Genesis are the most vague parts of the Bible, so I obviously understand that there was most likely a lot more to it than just what Genesis describes. I also agree with what Lingo said, that science and religion can co-exist. However, that's really hard when the secular left is always using science to try and "dis-prove" God, and the religious right is always making the claims that science is a great big lie from Satan. Science feels threatened by religion, and religion feels threatened by science.

This doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying. I was using the tree as an example of how God could have created something fast...but given it the appearance that it is old. Anything is possible with God.

Because if you just go by life itself, you will spend your whole life looking for answers, while the Bible clearly gives them right to you. You just have to choose whether you accept the answers it gives, or reject them.

But, it's a very logical conclusion.
By who's logic you may ask? I don't know, anyone who can see and observe and come up with
conclusions on their own. The scientists, the researchers, people with PHD's who spend their entire lives studying this sort of thing. Certainly all that research should mean something.

Because at this particular point in the life cycle of our planet, humans rule the world. We have kept other species from evolving to our point, we "won the race". A few million years ago, dinosaurs ruled the world and kept us from evolving. It wasn't until the dinosaurs died off that we started to evolve to become who we are. And if we die off in a mass extinction, then another species will evolve to become the rulers of the world. They might even become more advanced then us.

Maybe God made it happen.

They did evolve. Let's take for example, sharks. There are thousands of species of shark and thousands of species of fish that evolved from sharks. They evolved! It's just that the older species of shark are still fit to survive in their environment so they didn't become extinct. They survived, there's no clearer explanation then then that.

Not really. There are no animals in the African Savanna that is covered in a thick coat of hair. Animals like zebras, giraffes, lions and cheetahs have a thin coat of fur to aid in things like camouflage, and protection from the sun. Notice, you don't see any any woolly mammoths in Africa. Other African animals like gorillas have think fur because they live in dense rain forests and their fur helps them stay dry and insulated.

Yes, I would say "Evolution has been observed," and if small changes have occurred over a small period of time, why not large changes over a large period of time. Why NOT come to that conclusion? It's the logical, scientific conclusion using the scientific method.
Just look at nature, evolution explains so much. Not only does it explain why humans and primates are so similar, but also why we have classes of animals like mammals, birds and reptiles. Why are all mammals warm blooded, give live birth and breast feed their young? Why do all birds have beaks, feathers and wings? Why are all reptiles covered in scales and cold blooded? Why do almost all forms of life follow the pattern of one head, two eyes, one mouth, one nose, etc and so forth. If their was no evolution, there would be none of these observable similarities.The creatures of the world would be vastly different with no explanation. It would be like a fantasy world. The might be a cycloptic creature, or a creature with feathers, two heads, six legs and a fish tail (among other creatures that are vastly different).

What about the secular right and the religious left? They do exist.

No, it has everything to do with what you were saying. If you go into the woods and see an old tree, are going to come up with assumption:
A) God came down and snapped his fingers and made the tree appear out of nothing
B) That it's an old tree that started as a seed and over time grew into a sapling and eventually into an old tree.
Obviously, you'd choose B).
So why would you assume the earth, the universe and all life on earth was snapped into being out of nothing?

COULD God have done it that way? Sure! He could have created everything the way it is a mere five seconds ago, and all of our memories from before that point were created with it. Why not come to THAT conclusion?
Yes, He COULD have created the universe in the twinkling of man's eye, but according to the evidence that He provided for us, He DIDN'T do it that way.

I'd personally rather find my own answers then have them spoon fed to me by a book I'd rather not be true. And it's not clear at all, in fact it raises more questions then provides answers.
If you're happy with the "answers" provide in the Bible, then good for you.
For me, I think life is more about the journey then the conclusion.

Why is it a logical conclusion? Why isn't it logical to think that human beings are unique among all the animals, and not related to them? Scientists may have all the PHD's, but what if they are wrong? They are human beings, and no human is infallible. Some people may look at us and say, "Hey, we are so unique when compared to the animals...we must be a special creation that's separate from the rest." While others may say, "We are so similar to apes...we must be related to them." Why is the first thought considered foolishness, while the other is considered logic?

But humans did not cover the entire planet until just the last few thousand years. How could we prevent other life forms from evolving to become just as advanced or more advanced than us, if we only covered a certain part of the planet? Unless there is evidence that suggests that all life was concentrated to one area during that time.

Buy why didn't the older species of sharks that survived...evolve into a more advanced species? Why did it stay the same for millions of years?

They may not have a thick coat...but they they're entire bodies are still completely covered with hair.

However, evolution is all about mutations...and that would be the thing to more likely give you creatures with two heads, six legs, etc. Evolutionists teach that natural selection keeps trying until it gets something right, so that would mean that there should be all kinds of fossils of deformed animals and mutated animals out there like you described. Every fossil we find is of an animal that was fully capable of survival. Where are the fossils of animals who hadn't evolved their teeth yet, or their arms yet? Why are there no fossils of birds with no wings, or rodents with no legs (or half legs)? These should be the most common fossils out there if there really were billions of years of evolution going on.

Because we weren't there to see it, so we can't say "there's no way God did it that way".

I don't remember scientists ever finding evidence on how the earth came into being.

They don't even know how life first appeared

But they didn't evolve. Why? Evolutionists teach that everything is always evolving. Why are there exceptions to the rule? Clearly humans have survived all this time, and evolutionists will say that we are still evolving.

The writers of the Bible were fallible human beings as well; primitive, superstitious fallible human beings who had nowhere near the knowledge we have today. So why believe them over educated scientists?

**sigh** Because they survived. I can't explain it any more simple than that. Either you get it or you don't.

It aids in their survival. It didn't aid in the survival of man, elephants and hippos. We have other things that aided in our survival.

]No, the mutations are flukes of nature that didn't survive more than a generation. Finding a fossil of one would be like finding a needle in a random haystack in an entire field of haystacks. The most common fossils would be of animals who were abundant and successful in survival over a vast period of time. Just like it is.

Really? Let me help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857863.html
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec98/OriginEarthMoon.html

Just to name a few sources.

You're right, it's still a mystery. We have evolution which explains the diversity of life, but nothing that explains its beginning, except faith. Unfortunately, faith isn't science, so, as scientists, we can't just say it was God without any concrete evidence to back it up.
I believe in evolution, I believe in scientific evidence, but those beliefs in no way conflict with my quest for spiritual enlightenment. If anything, they aid in them. In my opinion, studying God's creation and solving the mysteries of how it works is a form of worship.

Thousands and thousands of species "survived". Did they all stop evolving too?

I don't agree. Fossils that clearly show the animals were going through obvious changes (birds with half wings, fish with half legs, etc) would be the most common...because those changes would take millions of years, and you'd have hundreds of thousands of different species all going through different evolutionary changes. Every fossil we find is of an animal that is already perfectly well adapted to surviving.

A common argument I have heard against this point though, is that most fossils we find are from around the same period of time. Many scientists say there must have been a world wide event that caused them all to die out in a very short amount of time and buried them. To me, this is evidence of the flood spoken of in the Bible...but I won't get into that one with you.

But those are all just theories...guesswork. There is no way for them to prove exactly how the earth and life first appeared unless they actually saw it happen. All they can do is guess.

Well, I do agree that you can absolutely believe in God and evolution at the same time...and I know there are Christians out there who do believe in evolution (you just hardly hear about them). At the very most, I'd be willing to accept evolution at least as far as animals go...but my faith that God created man separate from the animals and in his own image is very firm and will not change. I would probably be called a "close-minded fool" for that line of thought. Well, let me be a close minded fool than.

Humans aren't really going to evolve now, as we have no need to, if we don't fit inot a niche, we change it to suit us, or create a tool to aid us. 'survival of the fittest' is no longer a term really applicable to ourselves

I hear that women have evolved and are prettier today than they were years back. They said men have remained the same though.

http://anewscafe.com/2009/07/29/women-getting-prettier-men-still-troglodytes/

I believe it's stupid to argue over shit like this.

We're here and that's all that matters. This war between evolutionists and creationists looking for proof of their arguments is wasting not only their time, but mankind's time. We should focus time and thought over things that matter.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a creator.

yes but i dont think we evolved from ape...if so so why are they still here?