Yeah, I completely agree. Evolution can explain away a lot of things, but there are some aspects to it which can only be labeled as inconsistent. I guess that's unavoidable with most belief systems, anyway.

Yep. Of course, it is possible there were many failures at the beginning stages that didn't fossilize, so there's no evidence that they occurred. It's also possible that there were unknown factors at the beginning of Earth, which would perfectly explain every inconsistency. Hey, it's possible a supernatural being intervened in the beginning to create life, then got bored/was satisfied/had other reasons to stop intervening once life developed to a certain point, and life was left to diversify on its own. We'll never really know.

Well, the general point of what you've just said is, of course that it took many, many many many many years--far longer than just one giraffe's lifetime. And say that one giraffe, however it attained it, had a long neck, as giraffes do today. And say one day it became very thirsty (forgive the tone I'm using, im just trying to be simple). And it went to the watering hole and bent that long neck down to get a drink and...KABAM! It dies! Giraffes have large hearts that they use to pump blood up that neck to their brain. when they bend over, sponges in their brains keepthem ffrom basically drowning in their own blood. But if that one giraffe hadn't yet evolved these critical sponges, it would die...and so would all of the other giraffes just like it. This would be a terrible setback for the rate of evolution, but of course, it would continue, all over again. And that giraffe would die, but they would keep evolving, and ultimately get absolutely nowhere!

Same with the woodpecker. It has a special glue on its tongue used to catch insects, but when it swallows, the glue is still attached...it would swallow its own tongue, and, well, die. Woodpeckers today, however, have saliva that melts the glue, but if woodpeckers took too long to evolve this trait, we'd have no common woodpeckers today.

There are so many animals just like this. It doesn't exactly prove macroevolution wrong entirely, but it does raise a multitude of questions, questions that evolutionists just don't seem to want to answer! I am so interested in this wonderfully creative theory, but i'm wearing thin hearing the same old, same old, no answers.

I have more, too. I can't wait to tackle how evolution isn't just pure science, but is actually more of a religion in itself. ;D Forgive my oversimplicity in some of this, it's been a long time since I did research on this (I'll refresh my memory as soon as I can), and I don't mean to sound condescending at all, please don't be mistaken!

There's a lot of stuff I'll have to take on here...it isn't really a simple matter, I can't just make one statement and shatter all evolution theories ever to have existed.

And I'm not really trying to prove it wrong, I'm just putting as many valid arguments as I can possibly think of. If they can all be reasonably countered, I'll rethink my position. Which is a quality that, unfortunately, a lot of different people with a multitude of different religions and ideas tend to lack.

If I said anything that makes no sense, please point it out so I can explain.

Random Interjection, The theory of evolution proposed by Darwin's studies is a large scale frame of Natural selection. The theory That evolution has taken as One Kind to another Is the same a tiger becoming a monkey. Not at all possible! ^-^

Well, I wouldn't exactly say it is like a tiger becoming a monkey. It would be more like a lizard becoming a dinosaur, a dinosaur becoming an archaeopteryx, an archaeopteryx becoming an ostrich, and then, Ta-da! We have the ostrich. Which honestly, if you catch barely a glimpse of this, it sounds reasonable...but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

*sorry, I won't be able to reply until much later today, just so you know*

First of all, this really isn't religion/creation vs. evolution/fact. Honestly, creationists often appeal to the facts of science while evolutionists often appeal to philosophical assumptions.
As Professor D.M.S. Watson said, "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (_{D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation", Nature, 1929}
A lot of evolution teachings that are in textbooks and schools these days are terribly outdated, and considered so even by evolutionists themselves. Yet still, children everywhere are being taught these long-ago theories as though they are still a fact. Which, well, they are not. (As I said, even evolutionists themselves have admitted this).
It really isn't about the facts, it's about the person looking at them. Because a fact will tell you, "it exists," but we must deside how to answer "it exists because".
If a scientist were to be digging about and find an arrowhead, and you asked them how it got there, they would know, immediately, that it must have been designed. There's no argument about that.
If you take a man to the big city and stand him in front of a building, asd ask how it got there, he would know that it had been constructed, built. If you asked, "But how do you know? Have you met the designer? What proof do you have?"
He might respond, "It is its own proof. The very fact that it is standing there means it MUST have been built!"
If you take an evolutionist into a room and show him a picture of the universe, and you asked him how it got there, he might say:
"Well, it exploded into existence billlions of years ago."

...

What?

...

So arrowheads, items, buildings, everything must have been created, but when you look at the world you think it created itself?

Is it really science? Or do followers of evolution simply not want to let a divine foot in the door?

I will try to answer your question of why evolutionists (scientists) try to avoid a Divine Creator.

First, as a quick aside, if you have studied the history of science, you will find that the best science flourished in direct opposition to authoritative and oppressive divine or anthropocentric thinking. We have copernicus and Gallileo, Newton and Darwin. Now, a lot of scientists will detach from religious thinking because science was the only original alternative.

Second: If you want to do science properly, you have to work with theories that can be falsified. This prevents the scientist from falling into the logical trap of 'oh! You can't falsify this. So it must be right' Evolution can be falsified. Why? Because you can look at all sorts of things and say "oi! That doesn't look like evolution at all!" And then you can argue differently.

However, if you chuck a divine or supernatural being into the mix, suddenly, there is no way to falsify it. You can't prove that the being exists...you can't prove that it doesn't exist. You could argue all sorts of things against this being: Well, if it exists, why don't I see it?" or "well if it exists, why do I have a useless tail-bone in my body?" And then the proponent of the divine being, can use all manner of his imagination to work his way around the problem: "Well He's invisible because it gives us free will. Or He left the planet in disgust a long time ago!" or even some arguments i've read "Well God put the fossils/tailbone there to test our faith!"

- now this is all linked in with the idea of parsimony. Parsimony in science is that the simplest explanation should be used to explain the data we see. The rule isn't there because it is 'right', it's there to stop ridiculous thinking and imagination runaways. Putting a God into the mix is actually the opposite of parsimony. Because then there needs to be an explanation of how he occurred, and it detracts away from the original question. This is not to say there isn't a God, it just means that adding a God when there is no specific evidence indicating His existence just complicates the issue.

Now. The other explanation, is then, why do evolutionists look at a building, or a watch or something, and then go 'oh! it was created' and then look at the universe and go 'oh! It just appeared' ? Well... short answer...I don't know, but i think it has something to do with order/entropy.

Presumably, the human knows when another human has made something. It could be a lone pillar in the desert, a tent, an elaborate circle of stones, a city office building...But all of these human made things share one thing in common. They all have an order to them. The pillar is usually perfect, even if it is blasted by the sun and the wind; it still looks deliberate. The tent might be ripped and torn, but it looks purposeful, the circle of stones is elaborately arrayed, the building is contructed in a certain way to convey order. But then when you look at the other stuff around you, a tree or landscape growing wild, a cluster of stars in the night sky, ...well, an evolutionist might look at that and see 'entropy' ... or chaos: Randomness; Disorder. If you look at a teenagers clean room, you might think "wow! They are so organised! look at how she created her working space! It's all colour coded." but then you look at a messy room and you think "Oh my God. Entropy."

Then again, if you believe in a monotheistic deity, or you're a sort-of pantheist, you might look at random things and think: "wow. It looks so random to me, but I feel there is a big purpose behind this." - Someone who can look at chaos and still see a greater order to it (that they can't understand or comprehend) is wise indeed.

I don't know which view is superior: someone who looks at chaos and sees chaos, or someone who looks at chaos and sees a greater order... *shrugs*

Quote:
"Presumably, the human knows when another human has made something. It could be a lone pillar in the desert, a tent, an elaborate circle of stones, a city office building...But all of these human made things share one thing in common. They all have an order to them. The pillar is usually perfect, even if it is blasted by the sun and the wind; it still looks deliberate. The tent might be ripped and torn, but it looks purposeful, the circle of stones is elaborately arrayed, the building is contructed in a certain way to convey order. But then when you look at the other stuff around you, a tree or landscape growing wild, a cluster of stars in the night sky, ...well, an evolutionist might look at that and see 'entropy' ... or chaos"

(that was from you.)

So let me get this straight.
You look out the window, and, obviously I don't know whether you see a neighborhood or woods or a lake or more buildings or who knows what. But--just see...
You look at the world, and you think, "Wow. This place is total and complete chaos. It couldn't possibly been created by an intelligent being! Look at all the horror and disorder!"

Earth is disorder??

We live in a world that was, clearly, very very good (of course now we have light and energy pollution, war, terrorism, other plutions, etcetera) but it is still a perfect place. Just the right climate, just the right atmosphere and gravity and distance from the sun, just right and perfectly suited for life.
Say you are walking through the forest and see a broken branch, or scratch marks on a tree. As far as you know, just a couple paces ahead of you, someone made those scratches or broke that branch. Or, it could have been weather-wear and animal life. You really don't know.
I guess you could say you might have a 'feeling' that is is human, but that is entirely emotional and cannot be backed up with solid proof, at least not necessarily.

What I'm saying is, some things, like a stone pillar or tent, those are obviously human. Created by an intelligent life form. But some man-made things are much, much, much less obvious.

And, of course, I must remind you that if there is a divine being, they must certainly be VERY intelligent, and therefore, i believe, could cover their tracks--down to the tiniest molecule. But I don't actually believe that a god-like figure would leave without leaving a mark, no matter how unnoticable...and I don't think they did. I believe that we, the detectives, are the very clues we are looking for.
A little ironic, isn't it?

And I'm gonna interject here with a little message from our sponsors, the evolutionists.

Creationists believe that earth is perfect for Terran life because it was made for Terran life. Evolutionists say that the planet is perfect for its life because that life could only form in ways that utilised the earth and its many facets. In this case, it's not "Earth is ideal for us," it's "we're ideal for Earth."

The difference between what Amarok has said and what you've said is that Amarok is saying that nature appears to be chaotic and, therefore, indeliberate. That would then point to why people believe it wasn't created with intent. What you're saying is that something can be created and not look deliberate. You use scratch marks and broken sticks as an example. However, the flaw with this is that they may not have been intentional. In this way, they were not built, but appeared as a result of stimulus.

My point is that one may be able to look at a building and say that it was built by man. That person is able to determine that through what he or she knows about nature and about humanity. By seeing similar structures built by humans, you can look at another and presume that that is its origin. Some things are less clear; I may find something in the dirt that looks like a gear and assume that it is manmade, but it may in actuality be the remnants of a creature or a rock formation. Because of its similarity to something else I know, I think its origin is the same. We look at other things and don't know. With the universe, there's nothing to compare it to. It is an utter mystery, so we assign it whatever meaning we need, whether that be a god or a lack thereof.

Also, I feel I must correct you. Evolutionists or atheists or whoever they may be do not simply say that the universe "exploded into existence billions of years ago." I haven't heard any widely accepted theory of how it was created. The Big Bang is a theory that all matter in the universe was once condensed into an infinitely small area until, for whatever reason, it suddenly and explosively began to expand. We don't have a clue how it all got there. It's similar to the way that creationists can't pinpoint exactly how God came to be, either.

I'm not one to believe something like that unless it can be proven to be so, so I don't have my own opinion either way. However, I will say that both ideas are possible, both can't be proven, and both are incomplete in some way or another.

@Amarok

Also, I've gotta say that I like how you explained everything. It was very interesting the way you described both theories.

Very, very good points.

Alright, fair. Just so we're clear, I understood all of that about the Big Bang theory; i was simply (as i stated) oversimplifying to make it as short as i could, because i didn't have time to write all of what you said out (indeed i don't have a lot of time now).

Evolution, really, is not so much an explanation for our past, but a glimpste into our future. In fact, it works backwards.

By multiple theories of evolution, indeed evolution itself, is that by mutating, certain life forms will live and the others will die. But no mutation has ever, I repeat EVER, in the history of the world as we know it, changed something for the BETTER.
It does the very opposite!
So instead of evolving us forwards, better, we are going very quickly in a death spiral downwards.
It almost seems more reasonable to use evolutionary tree to describe what our future might be like--devolving into an unintelligent, ape like being, and eventually, over a very long time, into nothing but a microscopic organism--and after that, just random matter floating in space?
It is simply impossible for an animal, human , or other being to become better by mutation.