Easier to believe in evolution

[brianlove84]

If I just picture God fronting the whole evolution movement. His divine power allowed the Earth to exist and people to be created and evolve and he still fufills his purpose

Brian
Fontana

[steen]

If evolution goes about by natural selection only,

But it doesn't. Who ever claimed that Evolution was Natural Selection only? Why ignoring all the other aspects of Evolution, most notably mutations?

then how did the concept of male and female arise? How is it possible for two separate divisions, each completely dependent on each other for reproduction, to have come about?

Through transitional developments that used both methods.

The only way I can think of is if it was already instituted when life was started.

And that's the benefit of Science, to actually do the research rather than just thinking about it.

And, if an evolutionist can get around this,

Ah, so you are implying that for every rational, Scientific explanation we produce, you will just keep upping the ante? That simply is nothing but God of the Gaps, evidence of not wanting serious exploration only "winning."

then how did the sex drive come about

Once sexual reproduction became established, then the more reproductive drive, the more offspring. How could that NOT increase that genetic component in a population?

and why aren't hermaphrodytical (if that's a word) animals the only ones in existence, since it would obviously be more efficient and easy than male and female?

Why would it be more efficient to maintain 2 different reproductive systems? Why would it be more efficient to have to use MORE resources on maintaining the body?

On top of that, I have the same questions as everyone else-- probably heard them a million times--

Yup. So many times that there are websites with standard answers to creationist claims. Here is one: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

but, nevertheless, I would like to know:

How can the Cambrian explosion be explained?

Given the cool link I provided, here you are:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Where are the missing links?

What missing links? Have you actually studied this, or did you rely on a creationist lie site for your questions?

Perhaps off topic from evolution, but still relevant-- where did existence and life itself come about without any God

Yup, you are right. Way outside the realm of Evolution. I suggest you read up on the research into Abiogenesis.

And why is existence in this universe so "fine-tuned" for human life?

Because human life evolved under the circumstances provided by the universe. If it had been different, the current biosphere would not exist. It kind of is like questioning why your clothes fit so well, it is because they were purchased based on the body you tried them on before purchasing.

I've heard it referred to as "the cosmos on a razor's edge." The statistics are incredibly persuasive; I'll go into detail if I must.

What statistics determine that you can find clothes that fit you rather than 2 pound elephants or 8 ton mice? Can you imagine how unreal and how unique the clothes have to be to fit you rather than the 8 ton mouse? Trying to argue backward is silly and irrelevant.

[Fisherking]

That view is called Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design depending upon how engaged you think your pet god is in the equation. Either way it is called...

PSEUDOSCIENCE

Right, all you have to do is add a non and an un for non-theistic evolution and un-intelligent design and it automatically becomes real science.

and it is as much a superstition as any other creation myth.

Except the non-theistic, un-intelligent designed creation myth...........

It is a popular view for people who still want their invisible friends but know that Evolution is a fact i.e. it is a cop-out.

It's a popular view (theistic evolution) because non-theistic evolution is a popular view.

[Biker]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

Biker

[olivergringold]

What infallible scripture are you talking about? Certainly not the one which places the age of the Universe between 6,000 - 10,000 years, I'd hope. That's rather solidly contradicted by science. That plus bringing oneself (or one Lazarus) back from the dead.

[Mkey4God]

If evolution goes about by natural selection only,

But it doesn't. Who ever claimed that Evolution was Natural Selection only? Why ignoring all the other aspects of Evolution, most notably mutations?

Natural selection uses mutations. I'm considering them one and the same.

then how did the concept of male and female arise? How is it possible for two separate divisions, each completely dependent on each other for reproduction, to have come about?

Through transitional developments that used both methods.

Natural selection picks out those that are most likely to survive and lets them go on. How is a creature with a disfunctional reproductive organ more likely to survive? Natural selection would do nothing to further this separation of male and female. It would just be a random mutation that would be erased by natural selection. I can't understand the logic behind it. If there's more to it, then please help me to understand.

And, if an evolutionist can get around this,

Ah, so you are implying that for every rational, Scientific explanation we produce, you will just keep upping the ante? That simply is nothing but God of the Gaps, evidence of not wanting serious exploration only "winning."

No. I've put forward something that needs explanation. If you can explain, then there is another problem that needs explanation. I'm not upping the ante, only debating.
I am not concerned with the facts. As far as "winning," I'm only trying to lead you and others to Christianity. I already know where I stand, and the facts aren't going to change that. Frankly, if Christianity is wrong, I don't want to be right.

and why aren't hermaphrodytical (if that's a word) animals the only ones in existence, since it would obviously be more efficient and easy than male and female?

Why would it be more efficient to maintain 2 different reproductive systems? Why would it be more efficient to have to use MORE resources on maintaining the body?

How would it take anything away from the body to maintain both reproductive systems?

Where are the missing links?

What missing links? Have you actually studied this, or did you rely on a creationist lie site for your questions?

Evolutionist theory says that man evolved from an apelike creature. Which means, before man existed, there were billions upon billions of human ancestors. So far, zero have been found in the entire planet. How have creationists made that a lie?

Perhaps off topic from evolution, but still relevant-- where did existence and life itself come about without any God

Yup, you are right. Way outside the realm of Evolution. I suggest you read up on the research into Abiogenesis.

From what I've read, abiogenesis has been disproved. I don't think it's possible, but if you insist on "God of the Gaps," then there's nothing I can say.

[olivergringold]

From what I've read, abiogenesis has been disproved. I don't think it's possible, but if you insist on "God of the Gaps," then there's nothing I can say.

I've never heard of that. Care to share a source? I have two which suggest otherwise...

The Origins of Life Made Easy:
Re: Re: The Origins of Life Made Easy:

[Zzyzx]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

[Biker]

What infallible scripture are you talking about? Certainly not the one which places the age of the Universe between 6,000 - 10,000 years, I'd hope. That's rather solidly contradicted by science. That plus bringing oneself (or one Lazarus) back from the dead.

Make the case for your two examples. I don't understand?

Biker

[Biker]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

Z's
I have not found any Scripture in the original manuscripts that affirms anything that is contrary to fact! I have looked, studied, contemplated, meditated, perused, rolled over in my mind, thought about, mused, and so forth and so on, but I have not found anything.
How would one do, as you suggest?
Do you have 'anything' contrary to fact affirmed in the originals?
I certainly do not. How would I demonstrate that?
We have in hand with the modern document, as the 'originals', according to the science of textual criticism.
Since you obviously don't agree, you surely must have something in mind.

I might add, do you have undeniable proof of the theory of Darwinism?
Or, do you for that matter have undeniable proof of the theory of evolution?
If so, please provide.

Biker

[Biker]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

Hmmm, I guess I am wondering to exactly what "claims" you are referring?
What exactly are you claiming here?

Biker