can't these two theories come hand in hand? it could be God that initiated the evolution or the origin of everything

It's not a thing just related to "faith" and"belief". It's a question of "infrastructure and superstructure". Things are tightly connected to each other and you can't easily seperate them. Religion has never been only a "faith" issue or an attempt to explain and understand the universe. Since the very beginning, it has been an instrument of "politics" and hegemony. So, for the post-Constantine rulers of Rome (excluding Julianus) "(The Only) God the Creator" also represented the absolute power and superiority of the One Emperor. Not different for Islam: Mohammad...

can't these two theories come hand in hand? it could be God that initiated the evolution or the origin of everything

It's not a thing just related to "faith" and"belief". It's a question of "infrastructure and superstructure". Things are tightly connected to each other and you can't easily seperate them. Religion has never been only a "faith" issue or an attempt to explain and understand the universe. Since the very beginning, it has been an instrument of "politics" and hegemony. So, for the post-Constantine rulers of Rome (excluding Julianus) "(The Only) God the Creator" also represented the absolute power and superiority of the One Emperor. Not different for Islam: Mohammad fought for conquests, power and hegemony; he wasn't a "voyager of peace, trying to obey Allah the Mighty". After the Enlightenment, new born revolutionary class (bourgeoisy) needed a more liberal superstructure to fit the infrastructure it just created (capitalism) and reformations & secularism supplied the western world a huge step further. Islam on the other hand, remained in the understanding of the 7th century. (Of course I mean the "congragation", believers, not the religion itself.)

Evolutionism broke the "spell" of this "magic formula of obedience" for the sake of the new bourgeoise republic; that was a choice and the western world chose "science" and secularism. There is no room for a creationist view in this superstructure.

You should take a look at this
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe

Preeminent athiest Anthony Flue said creationsists have posed a serios challenge to every single evolutionary detail. However, evolutionists have no response to the science put forth by creationists. Anthony Flue is now a deist. Most people are not aware of the evidence contrary to evolution. Also look into the changes by astrophysicist Owen Gingrich - Top scientist at Harvard. He has also changed his tune.
It is amazing how we look at things like artchitecture and technology that we make an...

You should take a look at this
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe

Preeminent athiest Anthony Flue said creationsists have posed a serios challenge to every single evolutionary detail. However, evolutionists have no response to the science put forth by creationists. Anthony Flue is now a deist. Most people are not aware of the evidence contrary to evolution. Also look into the changes by astrophysicist Owen Gingrich - Top scientist at Harvard. He has also changed his tune.
It is amazing how we look at things like artchitecture and technology that we make and are certain they could never have happened on their own. Yet things much more complex like human life some think did happen on their own. Why is that. Notice the very incoherent and mostly irrelevent comment by Invictus. This is the usual diregard for facts you get. As if he is in possession of some esoteric knowledge. The fact is science, religion, and philosophy create a very comprehensive picture. Leave out one, and your really left with an incomplete picture.

"Tpq62 , this is not the same as changing species. What you talk about is about a single species remaining the same species but adapting to a different environment. What evolution talks about is a species changing into another species. Am I wrong in my understanding?"

Ali, yes...no..maybe...What is a species? That is not a simple question. In science a species is really a conventionally agreed upon line (reproductive isolation say) drawn through a continuum of small and cumulative changes (or possibly major changes, depending). Enough quantitative changes accumulate through time that eventually a qualitative judgment is called for--a new species. Suddenly everything on one side of the l...

"Tpq62 , this is not the same as changing species. What you talk about is about a single species remaining the same species but adapting to a different environment. What evolution talks about is a species changing into another species. Am I wrong in my understanding?"

Ali, yes...no..maybe...What is a species? That is not a simple question. In science a species is really a conventionally agreed upon line (reproductive isolation say) drawn through a continuum of small and cumulative changes (or possibly major changes, depending). Enough quantitative changes accumulate through time that eventually a qualitative judgment is called for--a new species. Suddenly everything on one side of the line is one species and everything on the other side is another, and people start screaming about needing a missing link between the two, when really the whole thing is nothing but links.

To use an analogy, if you think of villages in an area with a deep history. Each village has a slightly different but mutually intelligible dialect from the neighbouring ones. If you start at your village and move out 1 village...4 villages... 10 villages, at some point one village is, through the accumulation of enough small differences, speaking a different language from you. Substitute time for space and that is like evolution.

tpq62, the thing is that darwin's theory talks about species change. And the examples you give are within a particular species. I mean give me one example where one species has changed into another species in real life. Not in theory.

For example there are bacteria or viruses or such like that have reproductive cycles in milliseconds or less. So the scientists tried to prove evolution by seeing if they would change species or even mutate but after maybe millions or thousand of life cycles they found no change. So in theory people can talk in this way, but in practice there is no evidence. Its more a theory that some people want to be true rather than something that science has actaully o...

tpq62, the thing is that darwin's theory talks about species change. And the examples you give are within a particular species. I mean give me one example where one species has changed into another species in real life. Not in theory.

For example there are bacteria or viruses or such like that have reproductive cycles in milliseconds or less. So the scientists tried to prove evolution by seeing if they would change species or even mutate but after maybe millions or thousand of life cycles they found no change. So in theory people can talk in this way, but in practice there is no evidence. Its more a theory that some people want to be true rather than something that science has actaully observerd and tested or seen in a laboratory. So at the end of the day its just conjecture and all the lab evidence points against it, as far as i have seen. Plus the theory itself doesnt make sense. Because it says randomness causes improvment. Whereas in real life random changes cause defects and problems, not imporvements.

If your looking for proof Tpq, you will not find it. God's existence can only be argued. I just happen to believe the arguments are very strong, and that's an understatement to me. Especially in the context of my Christian faith and the series of events that reveal themselves in the Bible from the Beginning of man's existence, the purity of reason throughout, the fortelling of the messiah, and the perfect revelation in Christ, and the commitment of the apostles.
As for my point about information, I am not sure I can make it any more clear. Talk about a self-aggrandizing point...I'm embarrassed. It is relevant though. A mind stretched to new idea can never go back to it's original dimensions....

If your looking for proof Tpq, you will not find it. God's existence can only be argued. I just happen to believe the arguments are very strong, and that's an understatement to me. Especially in the context of my Christian faith and the series of events that reveal themselves in the Bible from the Beginning of man's existence, the purity of reason throughout, the fortelling of the messiah, and the perfect revelation in Christ, and the commitment of the apostles.
As for my point about information, I am not sure I can make it any more clear. Talk about a self-aggrandizing point...I'm embarrassed. It is relevant though. A mind stretched to new idea can never go back to it's original dimensions. I guess the only way I can clarify is to say the vehicle and symbols used for the transmission of information is not information.
Look at the half-life of something like plutonium. There is information somewhere in putonium that allows it to throw off atoms in an orderly way. How does each atom know when it is it's turn to be thrown off. I don't know if this is perfect example, but I hope it claries.

The only thing more ridiculous than your contentious attitude is the expection that you or I are capable of fleshing out the pros, cons, issues, debates, and scientific problems with evolution on a clipmarks thread.
You are not interested in the science. If you were, you would be more than willing to think for yourself and investigate the link I put forward. There is no need for me to reiterate what I've provided onsuch a large issue. Scientists like Owen Gingrich of Harvard and Atheists like Anthony Flue, both brilliant men recognize the problems with evolution and the scientific and philosophical consistencies of Intelligent design. They respect the work of the ID proponents. More and mor...

The only thing more ridiculous than your contentious attitude is the expection that you or I are capable of fleshing out the pros, cons, issues, debates, and scientific problems with evolution on a clipmarks thread.
You are not interested in the science. If you were, you would be more than willing to think for yourself and investigate the link I put forward. There is no need for me to reiterate what I've provided onsuch a large issue. Scientists like Owen Gingrich of Harvard and Atheists like Anthony Flue, both brilliant men recognize the problems with evolution and the scientific and philosophical consistencies of Intelligent design. They respect the work of the ID proponents. More and more people are joining this end of the argument. As for my discussion on information, forget it. It is rabbit trail and not really necessary for the debate, until you at least undersatand the concept of what is evolution.
I used to believe evolution. At the time it did not even effect my faith because I see no inconsistencies. But, it is not a consistent science. ID is much more consistent under every single scientific principle that can be applied. In fact, if you are interested in science.... the link I provide documents a new scientific support for Intelligent design every single day. You can look at the archives if you're interested. But I will not pretend to think you are.

Let me walk you through my last analogy. ...someone writes music on a sheet of paper, with all the jargon that is usually included... Think of that sheetmusic as the environment. The information exists in the mind of the person that wrote the music. He has expessed it in a sensory form....namely symbols. But the symbols aren't
information..they are just expressions of it that existed
in the writer.
Now if the environment on Earth changes. The change itself is not information. It is an expression in sensory form, namely hot, cold, wet, dry..
Now, like the same way our eyes read sheetmusic and bring th information to fruition in our brains, our dna "reads" the environment and brings the res...

Let me walk you through my last analogy. ...someone writes music on a sheet of paper, with all the jargon that is usually included... Think of that sheetmusic as the environment. The information exists in the mind of the person that wrote the music. He has expessed it in a sensory form....namely symbols. But the symbols aren't
information..they are just expressions of it that existed
in the writer.
Now if the environment on Earth changes. The change itself is not information. It is an expression in sensory form, namely hot, cold, wet, dry..
Now, like the same way our eyes read sheetmusic and bring th information to fruition in our brains, our dna "reads" the environment and brings the resulting adaptational changes we see in Micro-evolution. This ties back to my earlier statement about my belief in micro-evolution and how , to me it is evidence of an intelligent designer.

It's always interesting how creationists come up with so-called evidence to argue against "the theory of" evolution. Often, these arguments are based on "scientific evidence" that is based on out of date theories and pre-conceptions dating back to the 19th century. The most recent "evidence" posted by creationists is based on theories that have been debunked since the 1970's, and continue to be debunked today.

The problem with creationism is it has a STRONG background in religion and the belief in a deity that NO-ONE on this earth, despite what they claim, can EVER prove.

Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, and that argument has been levelled at me by christians an...

It's always interesting how creationists come up with so-called evidence to argue against "the theory of" evolution. Often, these arguments are based on "scientific evidence" that is based on out of date theories and pre-conceptions dating back to the 19th century. The most recent "evidence" posted by creationists is based on theories that have been debunked since the 1970's, and continue to be debunked today.

The problem with creationism is it has a STRONG background in religion and the belief in a deity that NO-ONE on this earth, despite what they claim, can EVER prove.

Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, and that argument has been levelled at me by christians and other religious organisations since I've discussed the subject of religion, but that argument equally applies to rational thinking, such as the facts of evolutionary life on Earth, one planet among billions that are very likely capable of supporting life.

The universe doesn't revolve around Earth, the Earth is not flat, there has been no evidence for these "miracles" that supposedly happened around the start of the AD calendar (and please, hearsay, "Scripture" and word of mouth are NOT evidence at all), and most importantly, night and day are a function of the planetary rotation around the sun (something I think everyone who reads a Bible seems to miss the point of), so "Night and Day" could not have been created after the Earth (the physical processes required to form planets would have taken billions of years, and the rotation of such bodies would have been well established by the time the planet was capable of supporting any life.

I mean, how can anyone take the theory of Creationism seriously when the Bible supports and advocates Slavery and Sexism?

Also, a lot of these so-called consistencies regarding the creationists theories have been debunked here.

www.godisimaginary.com