this reminds me of Mr. Garrsion in the South Park episode, " I wasn't born from a fish-frog that butt-%$#$#ed a mionkey"

Jumping in..

What "year" did God create the earth?

Here is a website that shows some of the many transitional fossils that scientists have found http://www.transitionalfossils.com/. Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it only explains the diversity of life. The origin of life is abiogenesis. Scientists have developed early earth conditions that produced not only simple organic compounds, but many amino acids, nucleotides, and sugar compounds necessary for life.

There is no universal agreement on why fishes adapted to land(we know they did based on the fossil record), but here are just some few hypothesis: The fishes that evolved were in freshwater rivers/lakes/swamps, and those areas would dry up and be refilled constantly throughout the year(this is seen through lungfishes which are fishes that have lungs and can survive months without water), so having lungs would be useful to breath air until the rains came in. The arms would be useful in crawling to other rivers/lakes when the water dries(we see that through adaptation through mudskippers). Another reason why leaving the water might be useful is for escaping predators and as a useful source for food since there was little to no competition outside of lakes. After looking at some of the reasoning, it's not unusual why fishes evolved into tetrapods.

Single celled organisms that exist today are not suppose to be simple. They have been evolving almost 4 billion years in environment of harsh competitions. Bacteria are one of the most adaptable organisms on earth and can survive pH levels from 1-14 and temperatures from the vents of lava in the ocean to the top of the Himalayas.

Now the probability of a simple self replicating chemical reaction is fairly slim. After that, the suitest molecule would be the one that replicates the quickest. Eventually those molecules would absorb from other replicating molecules in order to replicate quicker. This was the first competition against other reactions. Some absorbed other molecules and replicated while others found protection through lipid layers(which in water encloses like a bubble) which protected the molecules. This was the first cell. It was very basic. This cell would continue to replicate by absorbing molecules that could penetrate the lipid layer. After millions of years different cells used different methods to absorb molecules. Some using sunlight as a catalyst for reactions. Eventually one cell might absorb another cell in which both can bennefit each other(endosymbiotic theory). This would be the first organelle(this explains why mitochondira which is an organelle has two layers since the absorbtion would create a second layer). Eventually, single celled organisms would exchange genes in order to adapt quicker. This was the first "sex"(transduction, transection, transformation,etc). Through time, cells would produce colonies of cells in order to team up against other single celled organisms. This was the first multicellar organism. Eventually these multicellur organisms anchored to the ground and became a polyp(similar to sponges) which filtering food(single celled organisms) from the water. The lava form of polyps could swim in the water and some organisms remained the lava form their whole life, allowing them to move through the water(through the current at that time since they were not very well adapted to swimming). Eventually some formed hard a structural back(through notochords or vertebrates). This allowed structuring. These swimming organisms adapted to become fishes. The fishes multiplied and evolved. Some remaining in the ocean while some began to colonize in freshwater. These freshwater areas became very competitive and it was useful to get food and stay away from predators. Some adapted lungs and limbs in order to get out of the water where there was little competition and abundant amount of food. These was the first tetrapods/amphibians. Some amphibians began to move away from the waters for there was abundant food further away from water. These organisms began to lay eggs which official cut their dependency to be near water. These were the first reptiles. Reptiles are cold blooded and cannot sustain cold temperatures, which was a problem after a meteor crashed and caused colder temperatures since debree covered the sun, which killed many reptiles. Some evolved fur and internal body temperature to sustain cold winters. These were the first mammals. The mammals evolved into a variety of animals. One took to the trees and swung from tree to tree getting food. These were the first primates. Some eventually left the jungle and went to grasslands which were hot and filled with tall grass. In order to survive, selection preferred primates that could stand on their two legs(bipedal). These primates worked together in groups and began making tools. They're brains began to grow very quickly. These were the first humans. Eventually some figured out how to grow food(agriculture), which allowed them to stay near each other since they needed water to grow these plants. This was the first civilization.

After looking each tiny step, the mile as a whole seems very possible.

Simple question. Why is ignorance the biggest argument? Ok I understand  that people want to believe in one or the other. Creationism or Evolution. Ok believe one. I have no problem with it. But PLEASE don't use arguments based on assumptions or word of mouth. If your going to argue with a point. Research the point and present the point why it is or is not valid. Please don't use some BS from studies from 10/20/30 years ago that has well been explained by later research.

And PLEASE understand that ecology; any ecology is not a single dependent. The entire system is a massive web of interaction that goes well beyond simple though. There is no one who can sit and understand every nuance of the ecology. So yeah. Don't make baseless claims.

On another note. Personally I find evolution is boring. Ok yeah it makes sense. But Sumarian creationism and mythology is more fun to read. oh right. Mythology of one culture is just as a fact to them at the time. So why is it invalid now? Why is it that the Tuatha De'danan now a myth???? because Christians conquered and wanted to wipe out the Druidism belief? so if that's the case how is it a myth? and if it is how are you sure that your own believes shouldn't be along in myth either?

anyways. I wasted my time in this thread enough. It's not like progress can be made anyways. It's about beliefs. Only deep spiritual change through introspection through experience can change that. oooh which brings up 1 more point. Just because your believe in something. Don't limit your experiences you can have. If all your friends are Pagans try hanging out with Christians, Buddhists. Seriously the world is full of diversity experience it all. If your entire life you are taught 2 plus 2 = 22. Then even with the face of fact you will still believe that 2 plus 2=22 not 4. so yes. keep an open mind and don't limit your experience.

This is what I don't get - how can anyone look at Genesis or the rest of the Bible as a scientific book?

The Bible does not pretend to be scientific. A lot of people look at Genesis and assume it's scientific. It is not. Science explains how things came to be. Genesis lays theological premises in the Judeo/Christian context as to "why" things came to be, and consequences.

Genesis assumes there is a God. It does not attempt to prove God exists. It assumes a mechanism of faith is required to accept God. It does not assume that to accept the idea of God, that you need physical proof.

If you look at Genesis as a foundation to the Bible message, rather than 'how" the universe mechanically works, well, it makes it much easier to abide by.

Tell me, if you presume there is a God, and that God really wanted to tell you "how" he made the universe, stop and think; it's going to take a lot more than a few pages to explain that. I am being incredibly simplistic but it's the way it is. To explain the mechanics of the universe would take a book a lot thicker than Genesis.

Genesis introuduces certain theological constructs. Note, not scientific constructs. Genesis introduces:

1. A theological construct to explain free choice

2. A theological construct to explain morality

3. A theological construct to explain how choices are dealt with and atoned for.

4. A theological construct to explain what the nature of God just might be.

and so on.

No one is saying anyone has to agree with the theology. I just get ticked when someone tells me that the science has to agree with a book that has got nothing to do with science. It's pretty simple. Move on, nothing to see here.

And here's another interesting point - why do people get so passionate about the Creation vs Evolution debate?

Because the person who advocates creation thinks that if you can disprove evolution, you give God more credit and the end game is that if you can prove creation, you therefore prove that God exists.

Genesis and the rest of the Bible has nothing to do with this - it's not a scientific book. It assumes God exists as opposed to proving God exists.

Conversely, the person that advocates evolution thinks that if you prove evolution is happenning, then faith in a God becomes complete folly. The end game is that if you prove evolution, you can in fact disprove the existance of the Judeo/Christian idea of God. The hope is that you prove God is a delusion.

Both are unattainable "end games". I truly believe the truth is somewhere inbetween but you always have to be "happy" that you can change that belief or otherwise you are as dogmatic as the next person.

Lol, you come into a 17 page thread and try to shove this crap down our throats? Try reading some of the debates that have been going on as your psts show you are clearly ignorant of the science and the countless experiments and evidence available that support the theory of evolution. I honestly don't need to say anymore as it's nearly all been covered in this thread already. Go back and read the thread properly.

I think you have answered the question. The debate is about who we are and where we came from and what direction we are heading. Is man a fallen creature that was made in the image of God  or is man an improved glorified ape on his way up to godhood?  If man is just the product of nature (natural laws) then airplanes, computers, cars, building,etc. are nothing but the result of the laws of nature. Yet if that really is the truth then why does man speak as if he is outside/ apart from nature? ( artifical vs natural)  What is it that made us into gods? If man tries to explain away everything mechanically then he also explain himself away including the thoughts that everything can be explained mechanically.

@ underlined

I personally see this as ultimately human arrogance. Everything we create is through a manipulation of nature and the laws of physics and yes, we have created things that naturally couldn't occur on our planet randomly. Yet as a species we're still very fragile; diseases and pandemics, earthquakes, volanoes and other natural disasters could all eventually wipe us out.

The artificial vs natural argument I think comes about because we're one of the few species that has advanced and spread to such a stage that we can truly influence the world and potentially destroy it.

hmmm you are still making a difference between our creations vs nature. No matter how much we try there is something deep down within us that there is a part of man that is not exactly "natural". No doubt our bodies are 100% natural.

 P.S what I found interesting is man did not create the smallest rotary motor (known to man) and it's in every living cell known to man.

Not really, I still see that as natural. You could say the same about simple tools used by apes and monkeys. They're not possible by nature on its own, but through living beings manipulating nature. Same could be said of otters and the dams they build. The examples in nature are there, our creations are just more complicated due to us evolving higher brain function.

As I mentioned, I think the distinction is partly arrogance and partly because we realised we've created tools with the potential to destroy nearly all higher forms of life on Earth.