Hmm. You seem confused. Evolution has nothing to do with trying to explain the origin of the universe. That would be another topic.
Me confused?
No, from reading your post it seems as you are the one that is confused about whether or not to judge theories based on the origin of life.
Sorry buddy, but that doesn't exactly contradict evolution either so, I assume you don't really understand what you are critisizing.
I didn't expect it to directly because that falls within the half-truth of evolution.
How does the theory of creation explain the living creatures we now have - where did they all come from?
I thought you didn't want to talk about origins.
How does it explain fossils and species no longer in existance that died so long ago there is no evidence of modern creatures lying with them?
Such as?
How does it explain a mutation of human bloodcells that in it's heterozygous form allows the native population to better resist malaria, even though it's homozygous form is lethal?
You mean sickle cell anemia?
People without legs can't get athlete's foot. Big deal.
How does it explain an relatively new mutation in the blood of high-altitude Tibetans that allows them to survive in oxygen poor air without getting sick while their closely related Han countrymen lack it?
Easy, it is call adapting to ones surroundings which is a product of "design." Our military spends millions upon millions in adaptive technology and not a piece of it comes about by chance.
Nothing "needs" to fly or "needs" to swim, but they do. Adaptive responses have nothing to do with developing completely new, unnecessary functions.
Again (geesh, is this so difficult?) - just because we don't know the answer due to a lack of fossil evidence doesn't disprove the entire theory of evolution.
Just because we don't have any evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. Oh that is precious.
Please, how did the giraffe evolve?
In fact, an acceptence of the theory of evolution does not preclude the belief in a diety - it's just that explanations involving supernatural beings are not science and people should quit trying to distort science and sully faith by pretending it is.
Why are they not part of science? (Note: I am not arguing for or against them being part of science, I am just curious why you think they are not.)
Here's the problem with creationist-types, and it boils down to ASSumptions.
What part is being assumed?
You feel a need to force science to acknowledge theories that are not based in science (and since you have yet to show that they are, I assume you can't).
Force science to acknowledge theories? Hmmm... gee, what could be unscientific about a theory that states evolutionary adaptations (observable) are occuring but that they started from an original selection of life forms that generally resemble the current forms?
You ASSume that science and religion are incompatable. They aren't. There is no need to scientifically validate the existence of a diety for it to exist. The scientific method does not lend itself to the supernatural. That is what faith is for. Science and faith are both languages to explain the world around us - they overlap, but more often faith attempts to understand the world within and science the world without.
Seriously, are you okay?
I have been stating that they are compatable all along. It is you that is stating that they aren't.
They can be complimentary, unless you are a fundamentalist.
Yes, fundamentalist evolutionists do seem to have a problem accepting that fact. Just look at Richard Dawkins for example... mention the word G-d and he has a emotional breakdown, but mention alien fairy tales and he embraces it.
Clashes occur when chose to believe the literal word of a book that has been edited, translated, added to and subtracted from many times (often for political reasons early in the religion's history) instead of taking the view that the book may be deeper and less literal then the words on the page.
I've been duped, the Bible was actually written tomorrow.
Lee Strobel thought the same thing, but after setting out to prove the Bible as a complete hoax found the supreme integrity of the scriptures.
Clashes occur when you try to insist this is science. It's not. Despite the many attempts to clothe it in a cloak of scientific methedology, it fails abyssmally not the least because it's most basic premise is dependent on one thing: the existance of a scientifically unproveable being.
Yes, it is a bit difficult to show someone a picture of something that dwells outside the dimension in which human life is confined, but that does not make it completely unscientific. We know that the human eye cannot perceive the full spectrum of light. This, however, does not mean that those spectrum of light don't exist. Just because we cannot "see" radio waves does not mean that they don't exist.
I guess one could say, the clash is not between G-d and science but rather between quantum physics and biology (taught from an evolutionists perspective).
Evolution may not yet explain 100%, but the fact that it can only explain 99% doesn't invalidate the entire theory.
But the fact that it only accurately describes the part that we both agree on means that it doesn't validate it either.
Faith is beautiful. A piece of God exists in every living thing. Perhaps that first spark of life that started the whole process was God lighting the fire, and evolution is the process that that fire took off. Who's to say that evolution isn't God's handiwork?
Oh I agree, just not in the capacity that you would like me too. All that should be taught in school as "science" is that life forms "adapt" to their surroundings. This is observable and should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.
You try to constrict God to the margins defined by science and the words in a book.
The only thing that opposes the Book is a theory based on imaginations, supported by hoaxes, and kept alive by those who refuse to let the poor thing die.
