Why don't you believe in theory of evolution?

The theory of evolution does not say life started from something out of nothing. This is a philosophical question. Evolution is rather saying that we evolve through mutation from a common descent. Scientists who are atheists see the entire evolutionary process as random mutation, but to me as a Christian I see the entire process as being guided by the hand of God. I can't prove to them that is guided nor can they prove to me that the process is not guided. So I see no problem with evolution as a Christian. I can believe in Bible as well as in evolution. Bible says God is the creator who brings everything to life. Bible does not describe step by step scientific account of how life came about as much as it does not describe step by step account of how stars are formed or how entire history evolved.

Classycat; on the contrary animals kill for a reason they kill for food, and you are dooing the same only on a more classy way, you buy food that somebody else killed for you, (i do not think this is wrong, nor am I a vegetarian or somehing, it is a fact). They defend their teritory then again so would you if some stranger would want to move in to your house, they battle for their family, don't you? Some species also mate for life and are more faithfull than a lot of human. And there is another thing animals are not capable of commiting crimes of hate, they do not murder eachother withot any reason as some humans tend to, they do not start wars. In fact if i would have to choose which one is more pure harted a deer or an human I would go for a deer, you never see her do anything hatefull now do you. I think in this manner animals are way better than man.

The human mind and reasoning always wants things explained "step by step." When it says "God SPOKE AND IT WAS DONE" - I believe it. Who are any of us to question the ability of God to create all things? What makes us think that in the beginning anything had to have a 'process' in it's formation? God said it, and it was so. In the Garden of Eden - there was no process. God created man and woman, just like it says, and they were perfect in the making. If anything mankind isn't a part of evolution - but rather de-volution, if I can make up such a word, because mankind is not getting better, but worse as time goes on. Evolution is a lie. Many today not only believe in it, but live it - they believe that man is a part of the animal kingdom, and therefore acts as the animals. Animals kill without a need - they have multiple relationships, and they have no genuine feeling of remorse after killing or maiming another, just like many who kill and harm others today. Just my 2 cents worth.

But theory does not mean it is untrue. We have "theory" in all academic disciplines. "Theory" is that paradigm through which we explain facts. Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, string theory etc are all trying to explain facts. Theory could be wrong, but it could also be right. If a theory is wrong, then it will be dumped later as new theory is being used to describe facts better.

I am puzzled how you like to deal with fact not theories, is there any facts that God made every living thing? About the chicken and the egg, well it does explain that, first there was an egg and then there was a chicken. Chicken is not the first bird that ever populated this world, and there were zillions of animals that laid eggs before chicken first roamed the world. So one bird laid an egg which had a genetic flaw, a mutation and from the egg hatched the chicken as we know today note that this is very shortened explanation-a lot of generations was necessery and probably hole lot more mutations to get to the chicken part.

Thats right. Does the evolution theory explain which came first the chicken or the egg?

You are joking aren't you?

My archeology professor told me he is 99% chimp, one % human, i believe him too because he really look like one even he didn't tell me that.

As my archaeology teacher says.... genetically, you are 96% chimp, but you're also 25% carrot.

But theory of evolution simply does not say that, stevelvis. Evolutionary biology just does not work like that. You have misunderstood evolution. Evolution says we have common descent.

No they would not. Evolution is not taking the same steps in each and every sample, the fact that there are so many different species on Earth "proves" that. If everything evolved in the same manner there would be only one species on Earth. And evolution is not really fond on perfect timing so before another ape (or other species) will evolve into another "higher" life form (not neccesery a human) a lot of time may pass. + Evolution is not a one way process either. *My opinion*

Evolution theory dwells on similarities rather than differences. By doing so they lead us away from the truth: that similarities are evidence of a COMMON DESIGNER (GOD) behind the structure and function of the life forms. Each species of animals was created and designed to exist and thrive in a particular way. Darwin's theory focused on similarities within the major classification of animals and drew the assumption that those similarities prove that all animals are related to one another through common ancestors. If life had common ancestors, then the fossil records should overflow with many intermediate forms. Evolution relies on fossil records that shows only that fully formed species appearing for a time and then disappearing. Fossils can't support the thesis of Darwin that species slowly changed from one to another. Consider the building blocks of life-the cell and its components are far too complex for their codependent parts and processes to have evolved without an outside, intelligent designer at work (God) :-)

murderistic, I agree that we are made is His image and likeness. That is why though we have similarities with animals, we are also different. That is why we are able to take care of the sick and poor. That is why we ask the meaning of our life. That is why we talk about moral issues. That is why human being have the faculty to respond to God in faith. For an atheist the entire mechanism is through random mutation, but for a believer like you and me I don't see why it cannot be understood as a guided mechanism.

I disagree. Scriptures give us a lot of insight on how we should view science. Humans have something inherently different than animals - we are made in God's image. How could God make us in His image through evolution - random mutations? I am not discounting the fact that animals adapt to their environment through natural selection. But humans have not evolved for their biological benefit. We have soft nails and flat teeth, for example. We need tools to make up for our biological shortfalls. Not only that, but we have "evolved" to do everything possible to take care of the sick and the mentally and physical disabled, keep them alive as long as possible and even allow them to breed. The Bible calls for us to care for those who are sick, poor, and crippled. In this way the Bible completely rejects human evolution entirely.

It could be if there were enough evidence to support that. From what I have seen, there is not.

Scientists who are atheists see the entire evolutionary process as random mutation, but to me as a Christian I see the entire process as being guided by the hand of God. They can't prove to me that it is not guided, nor can I prove to them that is guided. (By 'prove' I meant it as in the sense of showing as if 2x2=4). So I see no problem with evolution as a Christian.

But how to you know scientifically that it has no guidance? I say it has guidance because I am going beyond science to argue for my point.

Darwinian evolution has no guidance, it's all random mutations done for immediate benefit.

If you have to ask then you need to find them yourself. I ca give you a good places to start. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne07/coyne07_index.html#top http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

By the way wihout being a scientist only one of these sites make any sence at all to me.

All ideas require belief.

So I guess "God did it" isn't an acceptable answer on your paleontology exam? *chuckle* Usually it's personal faith that's the cause behind it. They'll source people like Behe and (*shudder*) Hovind, but even they base their objections on personal beliefs. This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing the issue.

No it is not but I am afraid I might write it down as an answer at some questions and hope the professor has a good sence of humor :S.

I know I set my goal on getting the "why" answered with fact a bit high. But nevertheless I am feeling lucky today :D. Well except for facts I would be satisfied with the information from where this "dis-belief" came from, parents, school (hope not), personal investigation in the matter. I just find it interesting that believing one thing that has no proof (creation) is more likely than believing another thing which I see some people think there is no proof for (evolution). There are books for both, lol. On a personall note curentlly I really would prefer there was no such thing as evolution and that I could use the "religion card" considering I have an exam (paleontolgy) comming soon :D.

Than again why not :)

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html So much for the flagellum. Do you have any other silly theories you would like me to debunk. Here is a review of Michael Behe's latest book. He is the only academic I know whose own university has published a disclaimer on it's web site which states; "While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.” If I want to read fiction I prefer it to be a bit more entertaining. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?_r=1&ref=review&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

"I don't believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution because it doesn't explain why human cells have not developed any resistance to HIV or Malaria despite the new medications that have come out. " Oh, but we have. You will find that more people of European descent have a higher resistance (sometime even complete immunity) to HIV than people from other geographic backgrounds. This is due mostly to the aftermath of the black plague. Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325234239.htm The problem with developing immunity to HIV is that HIV effectively destroys the immune system, so it leaves very few survivors. It's kind of hard to have an evolutionary jump from easily affected to resistant when the virus you're dealing with is a microscopic grim reaper. However, let's not forget that HIV is a fairly recent development - given time we'll eventually evolve immunities to it.

Viruses evolve too. Anyway I do think there were some cases of people which had natural immunity to HIV. + Some medications were sucessfull in destroying the virus but did have too strong side effects which harmed the person more than the virus itself.

Thanks. I do have one question though, you do not believe in evolution because you say there is no solid evidence (that would persuade you) on it and on the other hand you belive in something that also can not be confirmed, that fascinates me. I have nothing against it, nor I am picking on you. But I am more than interested why have you decided in that way, why do you think creation is more probable than evolution? I really am looking forward on your answer.

MichellinaGem regarding 'the bible itself tells you that a day is as a thousand years to the lord' Could you tell me was it Lord or was it Jesus who told the writer this, whom did he tell and what was the conversation about?

I do belive in creation, however unlike what is stated in the article from the Washington Post I do not believe and have never been taught that the world was created 6,000 years ago. Nor do I literally believe that God made it in 6 days. The bible itself tels you that a day is as a thousand years to the Lord. I do believe that God made the world however long ago it was made and I believe it took him about 6,000 years to make. Which is I am sure what most believe as there is obvious science to back the world being way more than 6,000 years old. I am willing to believe science, but not when it makes statements it cannot back up. And a moth population changing colors is not the same as sying that random sludge came together and made a living creature and that one cell living creature suddenly got a bunch of them suck together to make a fish. Which is my understanding of how evolutionists belive that life started.

Darwins theory is very old and its now prove wrong by science with the theory of big bang. What in the world are you talking about? The Big Bang Theory deals with the origin of the universe while Darwin's theory deals with natural selection being the driving force for the natural process of evolution. There is no relationship between the two. You are talking apples and oranges here which makes the rest of your question rather silly.