That's legitimately a good point, Sheoul, I hadn't really thought about it that way.

I guess the only way I can base my theory would be to discount the bible's literal message altogether, and go off of the teachings of the church a bit more.... Or something.

I don't really know, between the time I wrote that post and now, we've been getting pretty deep into the catholic faith in my world religions class, and I'm really beginning to feel the need to re-evaluate my own beliefs. (Not that that has anything to do with particular topic, but still.)

So I suppose a Methodist or a Lutheran would definitely have the idea that Creationism and Evolution can't work together, because they take the bible as the only truth. I feel like as a catholic who believes the traditions and teachings of the church have just as much if not more truth in them than the bible, I can feel alright saying "Even though it;s not in the bible, doesn't necessarily mean it's not true."

Moksha-Achieved wrote: I feel like as a catholic who believes the traditions and teachings of the church have just as much if not more truth in them than the bible,

Careful, that's blasphemy, in a way, and we know what the Catholics do to sinners:
[spoiler]
They have sex with them and then cover it up.
[/spoiler]









I jest.

Moksha-Achieved wrote:But I feel like God could have very well been like "Hey you, single cell organism! Go ahead and Evolve into a human in about ninety million years!" (or however long it took in theory)

This is a big So What? What can you predict when you add "and God did it" to the theory of natural selection? If nothing new, it does nothing but add baggage to an elegant theory.

That's what I believe at least. Thoughts?

Did you really believe all that, or were you merely thinking of one possible solution to a problem?

I guess the only way I can base my theory would be to discount the bible's literal message altogether, and go off of the teachings of the church a bit more.... Or something.

Here's what you should do, if you actually want to base your theory on something tangible. Gather facts, as many as you can manage. Then think up a reason the facts are what they are. Use this reason to predict what another fact is. Then look for that fact to test your prediction's accuracy. Repeat until you are confident in your own authority. Nothing beats using your own head.

I'm really beginning to feel the need to re-evaluate my own beliefs.

When someone learns to doubt their own beliefs, it's a miracle. Please follow this urge. The world needs more thinkers. It has far too many dogmatists already.

For once I agree with Sheol on the evolution/bible thing.

The bible is very clear that God created the world in seven day "There was evening and there was morning, the first day" (and so on for all seven days). This does not say "billions of millions of years".

In my opinion, you must believe in either one or the other (evolution or the Bible), there are no in betweens.

Also with the traditions thing, they change over time, the Bible doesn't change. Need proof that the Bible doesn't and has not changed over time? Look no further:
I know alot of people say it is unreliable, however there are so many different witnesses that wrote that one book (way over three, which is what you need in a court of law). Not many other religious books can say as much. The Dead Sea scrolls also helped show the accuracy. The Bible was written over two thousand years ago (most people agree with this I believe). It has stayed the same, in between 1947 and 1956people found the old scrolls and they were 99% accurate (sometimes small words like "the" and "and" were re-arranged, meaning was still the same). This helps prove that the Bible is still the same as when it was written, which is pretty amazing. If you want to look into this as well checkout:
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

Also, just to make it clear, I am not a Catholic, but I am a Christian. I go to a Baptist church, and my beliefs run almost completely parrallel with the Baptist teaching.

It is evolution vs creationism and not evolution vs the bible. There are many creation beliefs from different religions. It is just very common for people to only know how the creation belief is of Christianity, Islam and Judaism (which all share the same creation story). But there is for example the neo-platonic (from plato not the platonic faults) creation which I belief in which is remarkably close to the big bang theory and evolution, where I am a polytheist (influenced by modern Hinduism, just without castes and no meat restriction).

I understand this Anhiiya, however that was my personal opinion, nothing more.

(Wow, I managed to click the "preview" button instead of clicking inside the type-here text box. That -- was an exercise in failure.)

Having admitted now that I have not read any of the previous posts in this thread, I would like to posit (and I'm sure that someone before me has already stated a similar position) that it is possible to believe both in the existence of an immanent and transcendent God and in the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

There are some good readings on this topic, including Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller, who is both a Christian and a biology professor at Brown University; and Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life; Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution; and God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution by John F. Haught, fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center and former Chair of the Department of Theology at Georgetown University. I've actually met Dr. Haught, and he's quite a fascinating individual. (I've also been outside Dr. Miller's office, but have never met him.) I highly recommend any of these books to anyone with a serious interest in pursuing the discussion on a higher level.

This debate makes me laugh because of how emotional everybody gets. Species, as a whole and as individuals, can and do adapt to survive different situations. This is well documented and can be proven. However, these adaptations are always beneficial and help the individual to survive.

As stated before, genes have certain checks and balances to insure that they do NOT mutate. Genetic mutations are usually detrimental to an individual and, consequently, the species (not to be confused with genetic variation, such as whether you have blond or brown hair, or green or blue eyes).

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ ... _disorder/

http://www.knowyourgenes.org/genetic_di ... hwodswjGmg

There are about 4,000 genetic disorders/mutations that we have studied in humans, most of them fatal. An individual with a genetic mutation could not survive in the wild, at least not for very long, and definitely would not be able to reproduce (since females/males will choose the healthiest and strongest mate possible).

Therefore it is safe to assume that once a species has evolved, it will not turn into another species since that would be impossible. The fact that vertebrates have the same body style does not necessarily indicate a common ancestor, only that that is the ideal body type.

I am running short on time, but suffice it to say that there is no scientific basis for macro evolution. Evolution is a theory and a religion, and all efforts to prove that it is scientifically possible have utterly failed. I will post my evidence for this statement tomorrow, when I have more time.

Are you saying that evolution and platonic creation as well as the flawed intelligent creation are wrong while biblical creation is, in your opinion correct? You cannot say that evolution is wrong nor say that it is right. As a theory it has some true but some false aspects.

Aniihya wrote:Are you saying that evolution and platonic creation as well as the flawed intelligent creation are wrong while biblical creation is, in your opinion correct? You cannot say that evolution is wrong nor say that it is right. As a theory it has some true but some false aspects.

I am not saying that one view is correct or incorrect. I am saying that macro evolution, as described by Charles Darwin, is not fact and cannot be proven to be true or have actually occurred, and that the theory has some very big holes in it. For instance, it cannot be proven that all species have a common ancestor, it cannot be proven that multiple mutations over millions of years will turn one species into another, and it cannot be proven that a land animal will lose its legs and grow flippers to live in the water.

While reading 'The Origin of Species', I came across this: "All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or "ideally similar" in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there is no reason to doubt that the swimbladder has actually been converted into lungs, or an organ used exclusively for respiration."

Darwin assumes that because a swimbladder (which keeps fish upright and is not used to breathe) is in the same general place and shape as lungs, the lungs must have evolved from swimbladders. Except for one problem..... lungs are NOT swimbladders, and vice versa. Darwin knew nothing about the cell or that tissues are made up of cells, and that lung tissue and swimbladder tissue are inherently different and incompatible. The first fish to have a genetic mutation that caused it to grow lungs in the place of a swimbladder would be unable to swim properly, and thus die. Even if the mutation only caused the swimbladder to change slightly (shape, density, etc.), the fish would still die since a swimbladder must work absolutely perfectly to keep the fish upright.

Just Google 'famous evolutionary experiments' and you will find several interesting sites which you can read on your own time. The specific experiment I was thinking of was performed by Stanley Miller, during which he attempted to recreate the atmosphere of early earth. He then zapped the atmosphere with electricity to simulate lightning strikes, and produced several amino acids. However, scientists believed that he had not used the correct mixture of gases to match the actual conditions of early earth. When the experiment was reproduced with the correct gases, Miller got absolutely nothing.

Back to the point, what irks me is when macro evolution is touted as absolute fact. Darwinism has not been proven, it is a theory and more of a religion. Yes, gravity is also a theory, but the difference is that gravity can be scientifically tested again and again. None of the supposed 'facts' of evolution can be proven one way or another, just as creationism cannot be proven one way or another. It comes down to a matter of faith either way. That is what I am saying. It is the duty of science to explain what and how, it is the duty of religion to explain why.

Personally, I have objectively studied the facts for both sides, and I am more inclined to believe that an intelligent being created each individual species (even the extinct ones) than that the species grew out of some muck. Life does not come from non-life, and order does not come chaos. Einstein, who was smarter than me (and you) and the father of chaos theory, said as much.

Incidentally, here is a link to Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' for anybody who wants to read it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

Whelp, I'll get in on this.

I'm an atheist and an evolutionist (and I genuinely did not think that was a real word). Just gonna say that right now. I consider religion to be a detriment to human progress and something that needs to be gone, and I will not try to be nice about it or try to make it seem okay when I say that religion is idiotic and those who partake of it are at best misled and irrational. Belief in supernatural forces, such as gods, hold us back because they cause people to accept those ideas without a shred of evidence. I've always, I think, looked at the world in a very rational, logical manner, which is why from my very youth I've been convinced that religion is wrong. Now, I am not a scientist (not yet :v) and I will not claim to have a great understanding of the biological sciences involved in studying evolution, but I will not default to a simpler explanation (god) because of this. Evolution and science presents the most rational, intelligent case, and therefore I can claim to be a proponent of that case. I've read the Bible, the Quran, and the primary texts of the Kabbalah, and all it ever did was make me more certain that none of it made any sense. Now, I will confess that the Kabbalah school of thought and Jewish mysticism fascinate me as a subject of study and I do take an interest in it, but I don't accept it necessarily as the truth.

Addressing above posts--specifically the one directly above mine.

First of all, what you have said about the Miller-Urey experiment is false. Miller did not reproduce the experiment himself. Others did, and not only did their experiments not, as you say, "get absolutely nothing", they produced even more diverse molecules. So yeah, completely false.

Going back to your first paragraph. Let me start with your saying that a land animal cannot 'lose' its legs (which is a very simplified and honestly wrong way of putting it). Whales evolved from land-walking animals. Let's start with the paelaeontological evidence--and get ready now, 'cos there is a lot of it.. We start with Sinonyx, a wolf-sized, primitive ungulate from the order Condylarthra, arising in the late Paleocene era, about 56 million years ago. The characteristics that link Sinonyx to the whales, thus indicating that they are relatives, include an elongated muzzle, an enlarged jugular foramen, and a short basicranium, the combination of which was previously thought unique to whales. The tooth count was the primitive mammalian number (44); the teeth were differentiated as are the heterodont teeth of today's mammals. The molars were very narrow shearing teeth, especially in the lower jaw, but possessed multiple cusps. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish - all fish-hunting whales, as well as dolphins, have elongated muzzles. These features were atypical of ungulates of the order Condylarthra, indicating that Sinonyx was already developing the adaptations that later became the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago. The remains of Pakicetus are believed to be definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales. This is especially the case for the teeth. The upper and lower molars, which have multiple cusps, are still similar to those of Sinonyx, but the premolars have become simple triangular teeth composed of a single cusp serrated on its front and back edges. The teeth of later whales show even more simplification into simple serrated triangles, like those of carnivorous sharks, indicating that Pakicetus's teeth were adapted to hunting fish. On the other hand, around the same area Pakicetus was discovered, an unusual cetacean called Ambulocetus natans was discovered. It was found to have functional legs and a skeleton that would still permit for Ambulocetus to walk on land--by using its larger, strong femurs to support its hind legs. The femur didn't have large muscle attachment points, though, which means Ambulocetus' 'walking on land' did so by rotating the hind feet forward and waddling along the ground with the assistance of their forefeet and spinal flexion, much like, probably, a sea lion today. So, not a very efficient walker. But it would have been more efficient as a swimmer.

The forelimbs also demonstrate that sort of duality in function/structure. The ulna and the radius were strong and capable of carrying the weight of the animal on land. The strong elbow was strong but it was inclined rearward, making possible rearward thrusts of the forearm for swimming. However, the wrists, unlike those of modern whales, were flexible. From the anatomy of the spinal cord, it's generally accepted that Ambulocetus swam with its spine swaying up and down, propelled by its back feet, oriented to the rear; like most animals that swam this way, Ambulocetus had pretty big hind feet, which terminated in hooves (which points again to the ungulate origin of Ambulocetus).

Going further down into the Eocene era 46 or so million years ago, we have Rodhocetus, which displayed further pro-aquatic changes but retained terrestrial characteristics that continue to point towards its terrestrial origin. Due to the fact its sacral vertebrae were not fused, Rodhocetus had a flexible spine and could maintain a powerful thrust while swimming; it also probably had a tail fluke. It had shortened cervical vertebrae, heavy proximal tail vertebrae, and larger dorsal spines on the lumbar vertebrae that provided for a larger tail and axial muscle attachments--these are all characteristics previously thought unique to whales. On the other hand, Rodhocetus' pelvis, unlike future whales, was still connected to sacral vertebrae--meaning that to a degree Rodhocetus could still walk on land, but because of shorter ilium and femur, it was probably even less capable of terrestrial travel than Ambulocetus. The deepening of the thorax, lengthened skull, vertebral flexibility, and expanding tail musculature are all pointing to the transition from land-walking, to amphibious (Ambulocetus), to largely aquatic but still capable of terrestrial travel (Rodhocetus).

Dorudon represents the next and final step. Here, we see characteristics of Rodhocetus (the slim, deep thorax, extremely similar skull and teeth structure) are becoming blended with traits of modern whales (ear anatomy, tail-powered swimming, elongated vertebral column). These consistent changes (along with a lot of far more technical, complex paelaeontological jargon that I won't post because I myself don't entirely comprehend it XD) are the paelaeontological evidence in favour of the evolution from land-based mammal (Sinynoyx) to Dorudon, and then whales. We can get even further, into morphological evidence, molecular biology's contributions to the evidence, palaeonvironmental evidence, and just the obvious chronological evidence if this has not convinced you.

Well, hell. I really didn't expect my responce to that one point to take up four paragraphs, but there you have it. Concerning the common ancestor of all species, no, this is not concretely known: that does not mean that, since it isn't known for sure, it's false. Mind you, Darwin did not even state for sure that there was such an ancestor; he stated that he inferred from his data that it was a possibility. But, there is evidence towards it, and more evidence is being found. I'll try to keep this brief, but consider these points. Take genes, which are 'written' into DNA using the universal genetic code. They're the essential recipe for the creation of proteins, which drive cells and do everything from build DNA to extracting nutrients. You can take one such gene from any given human and put it into a bacterium, and the bacterium will make the human protein (this is how insulin is made). This is because the genetic code, as demonstrated, is universal to all life on Earth--doesn't this suggest a common ancestor, even if the common ancestor has yet to be exactly pinpointed? This is just one bit of the evidence used to support the idea of a universal common ancestor, and it alone is a compelling argument.

Now to address what you said about reading The Origin of Species. You cannot consider Darwin's original work to be the complete blueprint of evolution. It is a fundamental piece of the study of evolution, but the fact is that it was written long ago and much has been discovered since then that Darwin simply could not have known at the time. Many scientists have already acknowledged parts of Darwin's original work to be wrong--that's how science works, if something is wrong, it is acknowledged as such. I would recommend reading "The Greatest Show on Earth", by Richard Dawkins (as an aside, I would recommend reading anything by Richard Dawkins :P). It is a much more recent, much more complete compilation of the evidence in favour of evolution as it is now. The same goes for your bit about Einstein. Einstein died over half a century ago. Are you really going to suppose he had access to all evidence known, even at the time, in favour of evolution? Just because Einstein is 'smarter' than you and me does not make every thing that comes out of his mouth the truth.

So now to your point that Darwinism is not proven and is a 'religion'...no. Evolution is not a religion any more than religion is a scientifically accepted theory. I feel no need to even address that point.

"It is the duty of science to explain what and how, it is the duty of religion to explain why"...also no. Religion can't explain why. Religion (by which I refer to, of course, Judeo-Christian religion, or Islam, or any of the previously widely believed religions that have since faded into mere 'mythology') can't even prove itself to be true. Saying somehow it can explain 'why' science is true is laughable at best.

Nothing you have provided in your post proves evolution wrong. If anything, it's posed questions and opportunities that allow me to provide further proof as to why evolution is true.

To be honest it saddens me that it is necessary to discuss these things. That there are still people who insist evolution is somehow a 'religion' (no, it really isn't) and who somehow justify the belief that some all-powerful being created all life without any proof whatsoever saddens me and shows the futility of these discussions. Creationism is bred of an inability to see and understand simple logic. So it seems pointless to me to continue to put rational, logical proof before creationists because if they could digest the logic they wouldn't be creationists in the first place. That's why these discussions always become creationists saying "alright show me your evidence", the logical people showing them the evidence, and then the creationists going "well that's wrong. God made us all. Goodbye." I feel that creationists blatantly ignore the vast evidence in favour of evolution but joyously parade the smallest implication that evolution might be wrong in some place. Science looks at it all impartially and seeks only fact while religion is completely biased towards anything that will further its own agenda and convince people they're right and everything else is wrong. Or perhaps science and logic is just too hard for them, and therefore they must default to a simpler, more comfortable explanation: it was god. Anything happens, it was god. Why use science to explain something when you can just pin it to god?

So now I ask you creationists. Where is your evidence? Why should I accept creationism if there's no evidence? That's called blind faith, and that flies in the face of all logic and rational thought. I request one bit of proof for creationism--no more refuting evolution by providing bogus and outdated claims, I would like concrete evidence in support of creationism.

Painkiller: Where is proof that there are no gods? Just because crappy religions like Christianity and Islam have books that make the littlest sense, doesnt mean there is no deity. I am a pagan (meaning I am neither Christian, nor Muslim, nor Jewish, nor Buddhist, nor Zoroastrian). I believe in multiple gods, in human progress and our creation story is not example a genie who magically creates all. The creator god and goddess both created the planet earth as well as its satellite the moon and close objects as the sun. The earth was a fire ball that cooled on, the gods put their essence on the earth which slowly evolve into living beings, both micro and macroorganisms. Over a very long period sometime humans came to be.

This essence is most probably the primordial soup out of which life came. Just the people of my belief were historically persecuted by muslims because for the average people who couldnt afford education, Islam was easier to understand. For me this mistake is just laziness and naivete. Not all religions are backwards but sadly, many religions are. Many religions are based on the simplistic ways people thought in the past. But one who says that there is no god because he cant see the god or because he claims there is no proof although he doesnt have proof himself that there is no god or thinks that all religions follow the Bible, the Qur'an or the Torah, is no better than the simple-minded religious plebs.

Aniihya, your argument proves absolutely nothing. You can't say 'Well, prove there is no god', that's bullshit. The onus is not on scientists to disprove god. The onus is on religious people to prove there is a god, or whatever various supernatural fictional beings you believe in. And when you say what you believe in is somehow less lazy and naive than the major religions, that's also false, because what you believe in has zero evidence in favour of it as well.

But saying "oh no you cant" is no better than what an evangelist hast to say. You are just as little credible as I am since you cannot prove there is no god. Now stop being an idiot. Just because some supernatural things dont exist, doesnt mean that all supernatural things do not exist. It is the same with evolution. It isnt proven to be a fact, but just a theory. The world is full of uncertainties and you cannot turn an opinion into a fact without any base.

You're the one being an idiot. I have asked for a single bit of evidence in favour of creationism and all you can come up with is 'PROVE THAT THERE AREN'T GODS'. This discussion goes nowhere as long as it remains at 'evolutionists present logic, creationists disregard logic and demand proof that gods don't exist'. I'm saying 'oh no you can't' because you fucking can't, and the fact that you continually refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting your viewpoint only furthers my point.

Evolution is a theory. Not your completely wrong idea of what a theory is. This was said earlier in this very thread but you seem to be neglecting it. In everyday language a 'theory' is taken to mean a best guess. In science, a theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out. If evolution were not a proven fact, it would not be the basis of modern biology, and it would not be accepted universally by the vast majority of the scientific world.

So yeah. Still waiting for an actual post explaining the logic of creationism. And Aniihya, if you come up again with another post proclaiming that if I can't prove that there are no gods then there must be gods, I will disregard future posts from you. You've proven to have no basis for your 'argument' whatsoever and have yet to provide a decent rebuttal of the evidence put forth in favour of evolution. You keep proclaiming 'EVOLUTION ISN'T FACT' but I've yet to see any logic to that point.

Quote: "I'm saying 'oh no you can't' because you fucking can't" Well same goes for you. You cannot start flaming just because you undoubtfully believe in what you believe and try to force this upon others. I am pointing out neither can I prove there are gods while you cannot prove there arent. An while evolution is a theory, it hasnt been tested because it would require decades for a single experiment, maybe more than a lifetime. Evolution isnt the basis of modern biology, it is only seen as part of it. And saying "evolutionists present logic and creationists disregard logic" makes you a hypocrite since there are many types of creationism, some nearly identical to the evolution theory. The crap you evangelical atheists spout out prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. You probably looked up the stuff on the internet without even having a tad of expertise in biology which makes you unable to comprehend with what it is.

You disregarding of the fact that there are no answers yet to the questions:
1. Can you prove that there is a god? and
2. Can you prove that there is no god?

proves your laughable ignorance.

How does everything come from nothing? How do you know that no superior being may have triggered evolution? What is the meaning of life? Those are all questions that cannot be answered since no correct answers have been found yet.

Go ahead and ignore me, but that proves that you are unable to be part of a scientific themed conversation, it proves that you are ignorant, it proves that you cannot explain yourself right, it proves that you cannot respect other opinions or theories and it proves that you cannot prove anyone to be less intelligent. Is it really worth it to live in your own mind without having anyone to explain your feelings/thought towards this subject?

Alright, I'm going to swallow my pride and respond to your idiotic, illogical rambling even though I know you're not going to see any logic at all. At least maybe others will see this and laugh at how you continually prove incapable of seeing sense.

First of all, I have not started 'flaming'. I shall bring up the point that you first called me an idiot, but I'm not going to resort to 'you started it'. I called your posting idiotic and illogical because that's exactly what it is and I have already stated I will not be nice about it when I say creationism is idiotic and illogical. If I come off as condescending, that's because I am. All you do when presented with logic is bawl out "YOU'RE IGNORANT AND IDIOTIC BECAUSE I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC" so I have to resort to talking down to you, which I don't like to do but which I inevitably find myself doing. Why? Because every post I read from you, I feel like I'm talking to a child.

You are telling me about a scientific themed conversation. You, my friend, have no idea what science is about, and if it's a 'scientific themed' conversation you want, then you had better move aside, because you can have no part in that. Science requires a little thing you, as a creationist and a religious person, entirely lack: LOGIC.

"The crap you evangelical atheists spout out prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. You probably looked up the stuff on the internet without even having a tad of expertise in biology which makes you unable to comprehend with what it is." Yet another idiotic and pointless attempt at an argument. Okay--FIRST OFF. The term 'evangelical' pertains specifically and only to Christians. Second off, I find it laughable that you are lecturing me on how I 'have no idea' what I'm talking about. Sorry honey, it's you who has no idea what I'm talking about, because you lack the simple logic and rational mindset necessary for that.

"it hasnt been tested because it would require decades for a single experiment, maybe more than a lifetime." I hearken you to the Lenski experiment with E. coli, the Garland experiment with house mice, the Rose experiment with Drosophila melanogaster, and to the entire history of animal domestication, which is a history of controlled evolution in and of itself.

Yeah, it sucks when you completely lack the knowledge to back up your own points.

"How does everything come from nothing? How do you know that no superior being may have triggered evolution? What is the meaning of life?" Okay, where the hell does 'meaning of life' even come into this? That ain't a question for science, my dear, that's a question for philosophers who would rather waste time on such pointless questions than on topics actually worthy of discussion.

Everything does not come from nothing. The way you phrase that demonstrates your lack of grasp on the topic. We have a fairly good idea that the universe resulted from an event called the Big Bang, from which spacetime emerged and began to unfold due to metric expansion. The energy present in the universe was present in the state that existed at the very moment of the Big Bang, when time began and the universe began its expansion, and the universe came about as matter, emerging from this energy, came about when the universe had expanded to the point where it was cool enough to permit for particle expansion.

Complicated? Yeah, it is. Too bad some people just aren't willing to actually try to wade through it and figure it out on their own. So much easier if there was just a superior being who made it all happen, eh?

How do I know no superior being may have triggered evolution? I have no reason to believe it. Simple as that. I have no evidence that would possibly compel me to even accept it as a valid hypothesis. I could just as well say the universe was created by a Cosmic Catfish who exists outside of space and time and who controls the fates of every living thing. I'd be laughed at by every Christian fundamentalist who fails to see that all I've done is substitute god with a catfish. That don't make it a scientifically acceptable hypothesis. You can't claim that just because there is no proof against it, it must be true. You have yourself admitted it is impossible to prove creationism right or wrong. Why the hell discuss it then? It is a pointless endeavour, nothing comes of it, and no one is to be convinced to re-examine their beliefs. So I re-iterate my point: just because there's no proof against it does not immediately make it correct.

As to your last paragraph, it is nothing but a load of shabbily connected, very poorly made points attempting to provide evidence that I am any of the things you are attempting to say I am. I have explained myself right quite well, my good Aniihya; you are merely failing to accept my explanations, or refusing to understand them, or even simply incapable of it. I will not respect other people's beliefs if those beliefs are idiotic and holding us back as a society.

I await your inevitable rebuttal consisting of 'YOU ARE IGNORANT PROVE THERE ARE NO GODS YOU DON'T KNOW NOTHIN''

Yes I understand that with the energy. But where did the energy come from. Most evolutionists say it came from nothing. By the way I am not saying that evolution but that it isnt a fact. The evolution theory is a theory because it is constantly changing. Facts dont change though. My creationist belief is practically very similar just a whole variety of gods triggered it.

Are you crying? Why do you have to be a fucking snob. You arent high and mighty and you shouldnt judge someone and say they lack logic. And to the thing about a higher being triggering evolution. Quote: "You can't claim that just because there is no proof against it, it must be true." can apply to everything though. Replace it with "a deity" and "no deity" and it would be logical to use it.

Just because you see your perspective as infallible doesnt mean you can bend the definition of logic to your advantage. We are talking about uncertainties here. There are many true aspects and many false aspects on evolution and with debating if there is a higher power has caused us to swerve away from the actual topic: Evolution vs. Creationism. First you have to ask yourself: What is creationism? It is the general term for the belief in religious creation. What do closed minded atheistic wannabe intellectuals view it as? They view creationism as only the biblical creation stories.

"my good Aniihya; you are merely failing to accept my explanations, or refusing to understand them, or even simply incapable of it." This is the same crap Christians do: "Accept my opinions/perspective or else (you are an idiot)." You refuse to consider viewing yourself critically. By your logic I can say: "You refuse to understand what creationism is and wont be able to." That would be an ignorant statement though. It is more like: "You just ignore people who do not agree with you."

To be honest. As long as this goes no where, I wont waste my time anymore on this. Like I could care less about how everyone wants me to believe in evolutionism without doubt or believe in their kind on creationism. Why do you even care?