Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Question

For evolutionists - the belief that we and our environment evolved from other things, going back to primordial slime... where did the slime, or raw life materials come from? Look at how we are just the right distance from the sun, how our bodies work and are fed by what is around us, how we are protected by our atmosphere, how life is maintained by rain, and all the ecosystems, just for starters. Would evolutionists believe that it likely that the parts of a watch, left set on a table for 50 years, will become a functioning watch all by itself? It would be infinitely more likely than all of the things we know and enjoy happening by accident, or evolving.
Is it because people do not want to believe in a greater being?
The "missing link" will always be missing because our Creator in his wisdom created such beauty. He also gave us a spirit with our bodies so that we are in his image.
Can any evolutionists explain their theory of the beginnings? Of the first materials and start of life?

Answer 1

I favor intelligent design...for one I can just look around. I can take my watch apart..say 200 pieces...I can throw it on the ground 100 trillion times and the parts will never come together perfectly ever again...I need at this point a watch maker who could put the pieces back together. Evolution has a huge problem..where did the one cell come from??..they never mention that!

Answer 2

Evolution. Easily.

Im not 100% on the Precursor (slime) but here goes..as far as i can remember from my school days, when the Earth was solidifying from a volcanic rock into a cooler earth, as all planets eventually do, minerals and chemicals reacted to form basic Carbon molecules. These Carbon molecules in turn reacted with several hundred other chemicals, ending up with a periodic table-worthy soup..also called the Precursor. This was everything needed for life, minerals, acids, gases etc etc, but it wasnt life yet..delicate reactions over hundreds of thousands of years brought early single celled life...voila, the Primordial Soup my amigo

Im still an evolutionist to the core. Why? Because its the most valid argument. Chances of it may be slim, maybe the Earth is a one off planet, but its here. That doesnt mean 'God' made it, its chance. The only way i see christians trying to show me God is by saying something about 'its in the Bible'. Any scientist will tell you that a document which proves somethigng exists 'because it says so' its useless, its just like a story book..which is all i see the Bible as being. sorry guys.

Im happy to debate evolution with you though :)

Answer 3

In the beginning, there was hydrogen, and it went bang. This fused the hydrogen and and hydrogen begat helium. Helium fused due to the force of the bang and begat carbon. Now I now all you creationists who read the bible would like the full list but I'm noy going to give it to you but we have just gone from an elementary gas to a solid. The rest is not such a great leap.

The Earth is just the right distance from the sun - how many other planets aren't the right distance from the sun, why are they there?

You people reky on just 1 source for your information and then presume to talk about science. This is a poor research method and would earn you a failing grade at school. You need more sources of information. You need to find corroborating evidence. If you can do that, then you may one day be able to produce a valid atguement. Until then, stick to someting yo know

Answer 4

You are perfectly correct. The "missing link" will always be missing because they do not exist; or if they do, they do so only in the imagination of evolutionists (who still insist that evolution is based on facts).

Sometimes, I get the feeling that we are wasting time and effort on evolutionists and atheists because many of them are NOT willing or able to follow through with the scientific method. They fall short at the last point, namely, Draw reasonable conclusions based on ALL the scientific facts.

As an example, take johnny_zondo's point 5 above, "Tons of fossil evidence showing evolution". How did he arrive at this conclusion? Where are the transition links? and what does the evidence prove? Certainly NOT macro-evolution.

Another respondent, J_, would have us believe "scientists tell us how to cure AIDS, cancer, etc". Cure AIDS? How about prevent AIDS? This we know more than 5 000 years ago, long before the birth of modern science. Read your Bible, J_. And don't forget that the principle of quarantine to minimize the spread of communicable diseases was firmly established thousands of years before virus and bacteria were even discovered!!! Again, read your Bible. And do you know why there are so many obese people in U.S. today? If they would only eat less meat and fat!!! And yes, THAT is in the Bible, too.

Theists have no problem with EXPERIMENTAL science (except in small areas involving ethical considerations). The major problem that theists have is with PHILOSOPHICAL 'science', which is NOT science at all.

I wish that more people will understand that macro-evolution is a PHIPOSOPHY, just like religion.

Answer 5

Evolutionists and related scientists are the only ones who are serious about a natural explanation to the issues you pose. But let's not kid ourselves. Your "explanation" makes it abundantly clear you have no interest in their approach.
And that's just one of the problems. More importantly, every point you bring up has been demolished so many times one can only conclude you're not current on the topic. For example, your whole first paragraph rests on an erroneous use of the actual concepts of chance, chaos, and unpredictability. (By the way, did you notice you ended that paragraph with the options of either "accident or evolving?" Hmmmm.)

Lastly, let's clear the air here. No scientific theory pretends to be THE FINAL explanation for any field of inquiry. We often chuck out whole sections of a theory because we find it contradicts empirical findings. The difference between this and what you're proposing is that we DO NOT allow gaps in knowledge to be filled in by nonsense. (A little hint here as to how nonsense works: What makes a one-God creation theory logically superior to a 2 or 12-god creation theory?" Nothing at all. Try it.)

Answer 6

I personally believe that there is room for both. I believe we are all created beings. However, I also believe that man and animals have adapted over time.

In the Bible in Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." We see a variety of created kinds. I believe that evolution has occurred within these "created Kinds".

The best example of this is the Horse. There is fossil evidence of horses and horse-like creatures going back millions of years. However the horse in the fossil record is smaller and has multiple hooves or toes. The horse today has a single hoof and has adapted to their environment.

You do not see fossil records of horses having come from fish or amphibians. These were not the horse "kind". Both of these come from the created "kinds" of fish or amphibians. Each created "kind" was distinct and does not appear to overlap significantly. I believe there has been some interspecies mixing and this has provided much of the diversity you see but still this mixing was within the created "kinds".

Answer 7

hold on

i can already see where yoru assumptions have taken a wrong turn

1. you assume that the earth is the peopler condition for human life, in fact youve got it backwards, life has adapted to suit the earth.

2. our atmosphere allows life to flourish, we should be lucky its there. it is in no way proof that your god exists. if it is...show me how

3. weather is a product of the earths rotation. grab a sciecne book.

4. its not that people dont WANT to beleivei n a greater being, its that people CANT beleivei n a greater being. were not gullable enough to beleive that magic and fairy tales are true. sorry.

5. we have TONS of fossils showing the process of evolution. you simply dont udnerstand it....thats why you attack it.

6. prove there is a spirit. show me yours.

7. wel dont know where the first primordia looze came from, but we can speculate. what we need is a time machine. ill tell you what. we'll have a race. my team (atheists & acientists) will try and build one using our evil science and you creationists (christians and theists) pray to god for one. lets see who finishes first.

ready? GO!

Answer 8

Generally, I have found that evolutionists can explain their theory to a point, but when someone asks some simple intelligent questions about their theories they immediately rush to accusations, name-calling, anger, and anything other than actually answering the questions.

Generally, evolutionists cannot defend their theory very well. All scientific theory should stand up to critical defense. Evoltionists tend to respond with "I'm smarter than you therefore I'm right" as a defense.

Answer 9

Intelligent Evolution. Check out what the scientist interviewed on NPR had to say on Talk of the Nation, April 14, 2006.

Answer 10

Ahhh. Bless you my brother. And here I thought that I was the only voice of reason here on Yahoo! Answers. Only when you use God to fill in the gaps in science are you able to explain everything. The so called "missing links" are simply God's fingerprints, or His signature on His Design.

God created Evolution and guides mankind toward something greater.

Thank you and Glory be ID.

Answer 11

DOn't you think maybe it a bit arrogant to assume you know what god's plan or will is Maybe he put the seeds of life hear and is just watching it grow thue evolution could and most likely is his plan. I mean really what has he or it been doing since those first six days anyway. Seems like a lot of wasted time since or has he moved on to more important things.