Not you the OP..

you're an intelligent guy, padib, you and oosnap.... but SERIOUSLY?

There is not ONE thing in the world that is explained by any of those options, but you think it applies to Life on the planet? Why doesn't it have anything to do with anything else? You must understand that life is but an arbitrary facet of the universe. Life is no more unique than gravity or the speed of light.

And spontaneous creation is already addressed within the theory of evolution. By presenting the facts that it does, it automatically rules out spontaneous creation. That like me saying "this banana was taken out of the fridge and placed on the table" and someone coutnering it by saying "are you sure it didn't just appear on the table". That's not offering the problem. That's saying "you're wrong" along with "science is just random ideas that could be wrong at any point".

AND FYI to the OP, evolution doesn't say all life came from ONE common ancestor.

Also want to point out that the OP is using BAD logic. His statement is pretty much that evoution states that all species change over time, gradually acquiring beneficial inherited traits and replacing thier forebearers.

That's not evolution. Evolution is just a statement that new species arise due to the divergence in inherited traits found in populations of individuals. You used a false definition of what evolution is.

Many scientists beleive that evoltuion is a VERY rapid process, and that most species stay unchanged for VERY long periods of time, untill outside cirumstances (geological changes, the introduction of new species that results in predation or increased competition) force them to change.

In other words...evolution only happens when it needs to. If you notice, almost all examples of living fossils are either very small species or aquatic species. That doesn't strike you as weird? The reason is that these are the two type of organisms that have to deal with global changes the least. You'll even find this to be true in modern day disastors. The fact that living fossils are never dinosaurs, but rather fish and insects, actually helps support evolutionary theory.

I submit this proposal of the nature of God.

According to Genesis, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word WAS God.

According to the Bible God is Truth, and Truth is the word.

Using this description, I propose that God IS the mathematical concepts that we discover. God is e=mc2, and we know that it is him because there is no e=mc100. God is the very fabric of all natural law, and through those laws he creates us and controls us by forcing law upon us. This in turn shows that God is essentially science.

This is reinforced by the fact that through science we will soon be able to grow life without life, and clone, and do the things considered blasphemous. Even a computer processor is modeled after patterns of natural travel, which in turn is co-represented in the brain and heart of everything.

Science will eventually be used create to the perfect being after our own image that surpasses our limitations, as everyday our species violently surges past the limitations of previous generations.

Prove me wrong.

OP: Don't you believe that the earth is 6000 years old? Then why use lifeforms that are hundreds of millions years old to "prove" something? Its all wrong anyway and the entire thread shrivels into naught.

On topic; this shit again, I also like how people are still labeled "evolusionists" as if it were a homogeneous and religious group. I'm not going to get into this debate yet again, I know there's no changing anyone's mind either way. But what's with all the religiously themed threads as of late?

I absolutely love when I come to the VG forums and catch some OP bringing up non-game related, argumentative nonsense in a vain attempt to come off sounding authoritative and educated, only to watch him get completely owned by another poster.
Man that really makes my day.
It's even better when the OP (Oosnap) is given the contradictory evidence he asks for (Kitler53) and then doesn't have the means or ability to reply and simply ignores, runs away from the fight that HE started. In other words, he got shut down.
It's beautiful.
Nicely done Kitler.

It does not say that all life came from one specific cell. It says that all live came from single celled organisms. There is a difference between saying one specific cell multiplied into all life, and saying thousands of cells might have all appeared concurrently.

I don't know the basics, but evolution is more about a "stuff" being the root of all life, and not one specific thing. ie; Adam isn't the father of all humans, Adam appeared at the same time as Pedro, Xin, Murphy, Bjorn, and Dunga. All fathered their own children. (to use an example you might better understand)

Yet, the same can't be said about apes.  From which humans are often believed to have evolved from. ¬_¬

@theprof00

you begin your post by saying, "I submit this proposal" and end your post with, "Prove me wrong"

You need to put a little more thought into how you word things, because a proposal is simply another word for opinion; which is itself little more than conjecture; guesswork.

So there's really no need to prove you wrong. You sorta did that already.... all by yourself, by asking for conflicting evidence to a purely subjecitve idea.
You can't really argue fact with fiction.
That's kinda like me saying, 'hey..I believe I've got wings and titanium abs'.. prove me wrong.

"There is a story believed by evolutionists that humans rapidly evolved from some ape ancestor in just 5-7 million years which requires drastic anatomical, biochemical, physiological etc. changes. But evolutionists also believe living or amber fossils can remain unchanged for up to 400+ million years compared to its living counterparts."

That "ape ancestor" still exists today though doesn't it?