Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it just random chance?

[Iron-Merc]

I'm definitely a creationist at heart. I believe that God is real, Jesus is the son of God. Humans are chained to a lie because that is the desire of our enemy. Satan has made his kingdom here on earth and has great influence over the human race. As evidenced in the garden of Eden, he caused the fall of humanity, the turn away from God and this is how "death" entered into our vocabulary.

In reference to evolution, its still just a theory. For one there are no transition forms in the fossil record. For another 99% of all mutations are bad. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility when you sit down and look at the odds.

For example, if evolution were true, what is the deal with all the fraudulent fossils? Surely there would be no need to "fake" the missing links between species, yet this seems to be a re-occurring theme that evolutionists cannot escape from.

Please share you views on this, I am eager to gain in insight and knowledge and that is exactly what this thread is about. I don't want this to turn into a political pissing match. Let's not mock or demean, simply list your argument and your evidence and debate your points as you see fit.

Good luck and God speed!

[Peter1469]

I see "evolution" as God's plan.

[jet57]

I'm definitely a creationist at heart. I believe that God is real, Jesus is the son of God. Humans are chained to a lie because that is the desire of our enemy. Satan has made his kingdom here on earth and has great influence over the human race. As evidenced in the garden of Eden, he caused the fall of humanity, the turn away from God and this is how "death" entered into our vocabulary.

In reference to evolution, its still just a theory. For one there are no transition forms in the fossil record. For another 99% of all mutations are bad. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility when you sit down and look at the odds.

For example, if evolution were true, what is the deal with all the fraudulent fossils? Surely there would be no need to "fake" the missing links between species, yet this seems to be a re-occurring theme that evolutionists cannot escape from.

Please share you views on this, I am eager to gain in insight and knowledge and that is exactly what this thread is about. I don't want this to turn into a political pissing match. Let's not mock or demean, simply list your argument and your evidence and debate your points as you see fit.

Good luck and God speed!

Theory or how God did it?

[Private Pickle]

Fake fossils?

[Chris]

I see "evolution" as God's plan.

If there's God then it is His plan.

[Chris]

In reference to evolution, its still just a theory. For one there are no transition forms in the fossil record. For another 99% of all mutations are bad. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility when you sit down and look at the odds.

Just a theory. There are two basic meanings of theory. One, implied by just, is it's just a wild ass guess. The other is description or explanation based on empirical evidence. Evolutionary theory is just that, the latter.

Is "no transition forms in the fossil record" your theory? Then it xis falsifiable: Pakicetus.

Odds and yet here we are.

[Standing Wolf]

There has never been a real conflict or incompatibility between the ideas of evolution and creation by an intelligent being - though there have always been some ready to pronounce that there is, and to declare that they've picked the winning side. Religion attempts to answer questions that Science does not address; Science describes the "how" without intruding into the realm of the "why".

[Chris]

There has never been a real conflict or incompatibility between the ideas of evolution and creation by an intelligent being - though there have always been some ready to pronounce that there is, and to declare that they've picked the winning side. Religion attempts to answer questions that Science does not address; Science describes the "how" without intruding into the realm of the "why".

The conflict is implied in the title, that between Intelligent Design and random chance.

[skepticalmike]

I assume that your source of information about mutations and transitional fossils is from a creationist one because the information is false. From what I have read, less than 50% of

mutations are harmful and many of those are only very slightly harmful. It isn't known what percentage of genetic mutations are beneficial but the number doesn't have to be very high for

beneficial mutations to spread rapidly within a population and create evolutionary change through natural selection.

There are many transitional fossils and there is a list of them at Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tional_fossils


Have you ever heard of tiktaalik? From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik


Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Ma (million years ago), having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).^[1]
Unearthed in Arctic Canada, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills - but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fish, but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

[skepticalmike]

There has never been a real conflict or incompatibility between the ideas of evolution and creation by an intelligent being - though there have always been some ready to pronounce that there is, and to declare that they've picked the winning side. Religion attempts to answer questions that Science does not address; Science describes the "how" without intruding into the realm of the "why".

If evolution can explain how life arose from single-celled life existing approximately 4 billion years ago then there is no need to propose an intelligent being as the source for the creation of life on our planet.

Even if an intelligent being is assumed as creating the first single-celled life forms, humans and all other subsequent life forms would still be the products of natural processes.

It might be inappropriate to ask a question beginning with "why" if there is no answer. Asking "Why are we here?" assumes that there is some reason or purpose for us being here.

I think that it is very difficult to make the argument that an intelligent being has had any influence on either the origin of life or the diversity of life.