If the evolution theory defies God, who created the incredible process of evolution and thus life?
354734
Simple...God created all things...including evolution.
443656
Aha, this is my passion.  You can look into the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  I think they're a group called Answers in Genesis.  If you want something more in-depth check out the book "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.  He interviews leading scientists (with extensive post-grad education) on a whole host of topics.  To hone in on strictly biology go for the Michael Behe book, "Darwin's Black Box."  The black box is the cell which Darwin thought was just a blob with a darker center.  He had NO idea that there was a super efficient little factory in there.  There's also a book called "Mere Creation."    If you buy the Lee Strobel book, he cites a ton of scholarly articles and books that you can get.  If you want me to list more, just say so.  God bless on your journey.  He definitely reveals Himself in creation.
1038944
evolution is right,  just read the work of charles darwin,\n\n\nexactly,  this is ridiculous\n\nto understand something we would have to expirience it\n\ni am trying myself to expirience god and not having much luck
310797
Evolution is a theory developed by Charles Darwin to explain the creation of life. \n\nHe believed that man originated from a single-celled organism that combined with another single-celled organism to create the first dual-celled organism.
1054056
The basis of evolution was that it all happened by chance over thousands of years, so it has nothing to do with God.  \n\nGod didn't need that type of fireworks show - I take it as the Bible says it.  He spoke and it happened, in six days.\n\nAlso, God being an almighty entity, he does things any way he wants to.  Just because it seems "easy" or "logical" to us doesn't mean that its that way for him.  He is all-knowing, we will never achieve that quality.
1006928
THEORIES OF EVOLUTION\n\nEvolution in one sense, means growth or development--literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition that will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by their various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:\n\n1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."\n\n2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.\n\n3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number . Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype...All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his theory more favor than it inherently deserves. Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man," without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit the creation of man.\n\n4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants and animals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of man--the most baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there were convincing proof of the evolution of plants and animals from one germ, there is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is the chief purpose of this book.\n\n5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that al1 species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists.\n\nThis book is divided into three parts: In Part One, material evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is disproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined and refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be impossible. There are in all fifty numbered arguments, including answers to the arguments of evolutionists.
99308
• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm\n\n*Irreducible complexity\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm\n\n* Biological Evidence\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm\n\n* The Moon\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm\n\n*Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks \nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
677315
How do we know evolution is not the way God made us? Perhaps the reference of making us from dust was a metaphor for the ever more rudimentary forms of us as you travel back in the geologic record.\n\nAfter all, the only thing that really separates Moses from Darwin is the matter of time involved. Moses and Darwin both agree that the universe began in fire. They both agree that the earth was formed from this fire, and that waters from the heavens cooled the surface. They both agree that life began in the oceans and spread to the land. They both agree that Man was the most recent of God's creations.\n\nA great deal of the strife caused by this issue is the idea that the two theories are mutually exclusive; that if one is right the other must be a complete fabrication. This is a little too much hubris for me. Even if Moses was inspired by God (as we all are to some degree), there is still the possibility of interpretation and exageration on his part because for all his goodness he was still a normal sinner like you and me. There has only been one man in all of human history who was completely without sin, and he did not actually write anything himself.
1018241
How life came into existance and how the different species have evolved or undergone changes has been the subject of constant analysis as well as  conjecture by mankind. Most religions have tried to theorize that all creation is the work of God. Modern science however does not 'see' the hand of God for creation to occur and believes that the different forms of life evolved from the primordial soup, made up of oxygen, nitrogen, oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen etc (simple molecules) dissolved in water and catalysed by lightening. Further evolution to higher forms of life was a natural process of selection which is exemplified best by the 'Dashawatar' analogy of the Hindus, amongst  all the prevailing religious theories. At which precise moment the advent of different species began, including that of humans, and where it will stop are all matters of conjectures (in the absence of scientific answers), feeding the various religious and non-religious dogmas.
1143148
Evolutionists argue that life of all forms evolved from primitive to more complex forms in response to the environment.\n\nIntelligent designers argue that none of this evolution stuff would work without a higher intelligence (read God) to get it all going in the first place.  Generally seen as another attempt to inject fundamentalism into the government so we can enjoy the same kind of life as our muslim brothers.......\n\nDisclaimer:  None of the above was researched anywhere on the web.  100% original Steve
653816
Evolution is a theory.
1101597
No you are not.  There are several theories to evolution.  Some are compatible with Christianity, some are not.  Belief in anyone of them, even if a wrong one, is not serious enough to get you damned (unless it causes you to act in certain ways that are contrary to the Christian life.)  Remember belief is only part of salvation, you have to do something with your belief.\n\nAs a note:  If you read Genesis Ch 1 in Hebrew you will notice that the verb that is used for "God created..." switches back and forth from having God as its exclusive object to being a more open ended.  The verb that means "God personally did the creating" is applied at the beginning of creation and at the creation of man.  The other verbs are along the lines of "called forth from" an indication that while God willed certain creation to be so, it was the process of creation (ie evolution) that actually formed that which was created.\n\nAlso you should know that certain theories of evolution have a long and strong history within Christianity.  Look up the Monk Gregory Mendel and his studies on genetics.  Also you should be aware that Catholics had an idea of evolution millennia before Darwin.\n\nLet me quote at length from FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA\n\n1.  The materialist doctrine of evolution...is contrary to Revelation.\n\n2.  The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation.  However, as regards to MAN, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul.  Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.  Proceeding from the assumption that God creates everything at one time (cf. Ecclus. 18.1), they taught that God brought a certain part of His creation into existence in a finished state, while He created others in the form of primitive seeds (rationes, seminales, or causales) from which they were gradually to develop.  Those Fathers and Schoolmen who accepted a development, conceived a development of the individual species of living things each from a particular primitive form created by God;  but modern theories of evolution (descendent theory) conceives that development as from one species to another.  According as these give priority to evolution from a plurality of original forms or from one single stem-form (primitive form) one speaks of a many-stemmed (polyphyletic) or single-stemmed (monophyletic) development.  From the stand point of the doctrine of evolution, either form is possible.
772249
Interesting.  When I read your question, my first thought was "creation."
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
934100
God was created (by) the first man to think of him.
1025199
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.\nYet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This \n"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.\nWe have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.\n\n\n(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)\n\nAlthough this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions. \nDarwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:\n1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth. \n2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all. \n3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.\n\nThe power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.\nIn this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:\n\n\nThe First Insurmountable Step: \n(The Origin of Life)\n\nThe theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" or
7893
Creation-DNA and the human body are far too complex to be be thrown together by chance.\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life.\n\nNow, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidently evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots. Science has its own beliefs and faiths. One of them in nucleonic glue holding like particles together in an atom, or evolution which is merely a theory accepted as fact. It is just an agenda to keep God out of the public arena.