Evolution does not disprove Creation anymore than the Assembly Line disproves the invention of the Car Rocket River
A test of faith in God? As for an explanation for your earlier question, from my understanding, creationists tend to differentiate between macro and micro evolution. They believe that a single organism can mutate and change, thus evolve on a micro level; development of antibiotics, speciation of cats and dogs, etc. However, they do not buy into the macro part. They feel there is no real proof for bacteria changing over trillions of years into humans. If there are any brave creationists out there, please feel free to correct me and defend yourselves Btw, this video is pretty long but it does a GREAT job of providing some concrete rebuttals of creationism by Dr. Kenneth Miller of Case Western Reserve University. It includes of a refutation of Michael Behe's theory of "irreducible complexity" I highly recommend it the information towards the end where Dr. Miller introduces some new arguments to the creationists to rebut. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVRsWAjvQSg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVRsWAjvQSg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I certainly can understand evolution. Micro-evolution I think is ridiculously clear. I can understand how members of one species could adapt so much that they turn into something entirely different. The only part I don't understand....is how the inanimate became animate. How acids turned into living things. And then looking at the complexity in DNA and imagining how that would have happened....like computers within us and all living creatures storing data through language and knowing just when to act. Producing information. I don't see that replicated in my understanding of the natural world.
Even science cannot clearly explain that part. There are plenty of theories that are just as good arguments as "God did it."
Oh, I'm sure of it. Of course, I'd argue that God is behind it, even if those "good arguments' prevail...that God is the source of that spark. Well, I wouldn't argue it, but it's what I believe.
As I've said before several times that isn't what the theory of Evolution deals with. It doesn't address the creation of life. For that matter gene theory while related to Evolution isn't the same thing.
I certainly respect this kind of viewpoint. As long as you're willing to accept the science and not try to prevent humans from learning anything new because it's too threatening, I don't see a problem with thinking that at the very least, there is a God who set everything in motion.
I think it was just two years ago that somebody did an experiment that lead to the creation of amino acids. The next thing you need are the building blocks for nucleic acids and scientists believe those came from meteors and comets, so in some sense, life did come from "heaven."
There are no theories that on the same level as "God did it." That is because nothing in science becomes a theory without concrete evidence backing it up.
Nice of you to provide such insight into the discussion. Please come back when you have something of value to add.
I would never seek to limit humans from learning anything new. I believe God is behind it all...and I believe God is bigger than my questions.
It was more than 50 years ago in the Miller-Urey Experiment that showed how amino acids could've been created in a possible early earth environment. http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html
yeah I meant "argument" for showing something as being unexplained. I think the process you did not understand is pretty well understood.
