This says it all pretty succinctly

[Guest032516]

A nice economy of words to make the essential point ...

[joe bloe]

I don't believe in the Biblical account of creation; it's clearly a fable. I also don't believe that random selection through accidental variation is sufficient to account for life, in all it's unimaginable complexity. To say that evolution is a complete explaination for why things are the way they are, is just as absurd as creationism; it's just as big a leap of faith.

My guess is, there is a universal intelligence that has a hand in guiding evolution.

Big Mistake
By David Wilcox

They taught us kids in school between the recess breaks
That the universe just sorta fell together like a Big Mistake
It started with a bang that sent the pieces flying
Then it cooled and twirled into dinosaurs and dandelioins

Chorus:

It was a Big Mistake to have eyes that see
To have love like this inside of me
To have lips that smile as I swim your kiss
To have minds that will forever every part of this

All the moonlight shrouded in the clouds above and
the autumn leaves and the falling love
The still reflection in the moonlit lake
All, they said, it was a big mistake, it was a big mistake

Now back to science class through the looking glass
We were magnifying little ancestors of our ancient past
Watch 'em break a couple chromosomes, wait a zillion years or so
And get an ostrich, a jellyfish, a kangaroo, and a Romeo

Chorus

The choreography of a coincidence
At the turning point there was eternity behind a moment's glance
It was for you and me the timing made us laugh
The fact that anyone could find their only one along this darkened path

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

To say that evolution is a complete explaination for why things are the way they are, is just as absurd as creationism; it's just as big a leap of faith.

No scientific theory is a proof, no scientific theory explains everything. The standard model in physics is accepted, and was given further credibility by the 'discovery' of the Higgs boson, but nobody says it is complete and explains everything.

But to then say all theories are an equal leap of face is... well, words escape me.

I suggest you go and study the various evolutionary theories and their supporting evidence and how the FAQs have been at least partially answered.

I like to think of myself as somewhat of a scientist, doesn't make me disbelieve in a creating God. The only question is:

- what kind of a God, what kind of a creator?

answers to which i will never know in my lifetime.

The real question is the bit about God creating man in his own image, which means that God has by nature some human attributes.

I don't know of any evidence for this, apart from what the Bible says about Jesus, which is a bit circular.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

No scientific theory is a proof, no scientific theory explains everything. The standard model in physics is accepted, and was given further credibility by the 'discovery' of the Higgs boson, but nobody says it is complete and explains everything.

But to then say all theories are an equal leap of face is... well, words escape me.

I suggest you go and study the various evolutionary theories and their supporting evidence and how the FAQs have been at least partially answered.

I like to think of myself as somewhat of a scientist, doesn't make me disbelieve in a creating God. The only question is:

- what kind of a God, what kind of a creator?

answers to which i will never know in my lifetime.

The real question is the bit about God creating man in his own image, which means that God has by nature some human attributes.

I don't know of any evidence for this, apart from what the Bible says about Jesus, which is a bit circular.

I didn't say ALL theories. I was comparing Darwin's theory and the creationist theory. That's TWO theories.

I agree that the big question about God, is his nature, not whether he exists. I think the most reasonable theory about the nature of God, is the Deist view that God created the world and left it to us to run. He doesn't intervene. That explains human suffering better than the belief that God is involved in day to day life.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer, of the molecular structure of DNA, and a life long atheist, had to concede that DNA's structure was too complex to have been created by natural selection.

I think a lot of atheists stubbornly defend the theory of evolution because it's a way of accounting for the world in a way that does not include God.

Even Crick himself was quoted as saying, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’3
Crick reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But the idea of a creator was unacceptable, since it would go against his atheistic faith. He affirmed this when he said, ‘People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views.’1

http://creation.com/designed-by-alie...ism-panspermia

[i'va biggen]

Joe has relatives in the zoo...They are still evolving...

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by ekim008

Joe has relatives in the zoo...They are still evolving...

That's a good one Ekim. Here's a cookie.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I didn't say ALL theories. I was comparing Darwin's theory and the creationist theory. That's TWO theories.

I agree that the big question about God, is his nature, not whether he exists. I think the most reasonable theory about the nature of God, is the Deist view that God created the world and left it to us to run. He doesn't intervene. That explains human suffering better than the belief that God is involved in day to day life.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer, of the molecular structure of DNA, and a life long atheist, had to concede that DNA's structure was too complex to have been created by natural selection.

I think a lot of atheists stubbornly defend the theory of evolution because it's a way of accounting for the world in a way that does not include God.

Even Crick himself was quoted as saying, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’3
Crick reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But the idea of a creator was unacceptable, since it would go against his atheistic faith. He affirmed this when he said, ‘People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views.’1

http://creation.com/designed-by-alie...ism-panspermia

Mathematician and Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who coined the term 'Big Bang' and was a lifelong anti-theist until he started doing research in the area of Panspermia, had this to say about the spontaneous generation of life on earth.
“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.” {Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1984, p. 148}

That's a number pretty close to zero.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Mathematician and Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who coined the term 'Big Bang' and was a lifelong anti-theist until he started doing research in the area of Panspermia, had this to say about the spontaneous generation of life on earth.
“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.” {Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1984, p. 148}

That's a number pretty close to zero.

Yep, I agree. There has to be intelligence behind life; it's just too complex. I don't think evolution and God are mutally exclusive. God may use evolution as a tool.

Just look at how the eye works. Light comes in through cornea, it's focused by an internal lens, projected onto the retina, converted into an electrical impulse, travels through the optic nerve and the brain takes the data and synthesises an image that we perceive. The sophistication of the design could not possibly have been acheived by natural selection alone, not in a million years, a billion years or an infinite amount of time.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Yep, I agree. There has to be intelligence behind life; it's just too complex. I don't think evolution and God are mutally exclusive. God may use evolution as a tool.

Just look at how the eye works. Light comes in through cornea, it's focused by an internal lens, projected onto the retina, converted into an electrical impulse, travels through the optic nerve and the brain takes the data and synthesises an image that we perceive. The sophistication of the design could not possibly have been acheived by natural selection alone, not in a million years, a billion years or an infinite amount of time.

It never ceases to astonish me how folks like you will say shit like this.....it's just all too unbelievable that it could have been the result of biological evolution. But, I believe it was all created by magic. Because, that makes sense and all.....the Bible tells me so.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by essence

No scientific theory is a proof, no scientific theory explains everything. The standard model in physics is accepted, and was given further credibility by the 'discovery' of the Higgs boson, but nobody says it is complete and explains everything.

But to then say all theories are an equal leap of face is... well, words escape me.

I suggest you go and study the various evolutionary theories and their supporting evidence and how the FAQs have been at least partially answered.

I like to think of myself as somewhat of a scientist, doesn't make me disbelieve in a creating God. The only question is:

- what kind of a God, what kind of a creator?

answers to which i will never know in my lifetime.

The real question is the bit about God creating man in his own image, which means that God has by nature some human attributes.

I don't know of any evidence for this, apart from what the Bible says about Jesus, which is a bit circular.

Just a point of interest. In the original Hebrew text the phrase you mention about man being created in the image of God actually says that man was created in the shadow of God. That mis-translation is what evangelicals use to form their idea of God as something like the great Santa Claus in the sky.
As for being a man of science and a believer in some kind of creator, Einstein said" "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by timpage

It never ceases to astonish me how folks like you will say shit like this.....it's just all too unbelievable that it could have been the result of biological evolution. But, I believe it was all created by magic. Because, that makes sense and all.....the Bible tells me so.

Please enlighten us about biological evolution. Tell us all about the primordial soup and amino acids.

[JD Barleycorn]

So you are using what can best be described as a very minority view and then saying that a large number of people are guilty of this view point. So I can say (your logic) that if a minority of muslims believe that you all shold be killed then I can condemn ALL muslims with the necessary results.

FYI, this has nothing to do with any post that I may have made. This is all about what the XNYR has posted. You do know that a lot of Jews were excellent soldiers in the first World War but they were all condemned by the Nazis. Same can be said of communists, gays, and intellectuals. So we all know where you stand and who you stand with.