As something of a casual observer in these discussions with little time to put any real depth to my replies, I think what the other poster here is saying, Bex, is exactly what you've said above. The only difference he/she's saying is that evolution was the mechanism by which G-d chose to bring forth life (correct me if I'm wrong).
Over the years I've come to believe the same thing you're saying here, Bex: intelligence requires an intelligent designer. The only real matter in question here is the method with which G-d might have done this. In any which way the evidence points it still leads to G-d's work as the final say-so, evolution, big bang theory, Adam and Eve, or not. For me, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for His existence. The rest is up for grabs (and for scientific venture).
Shalom!
Hi Egan,
I see your point. It is certainly about investigating our world and its inhabitants to find further clues to our beginnings. Regardless of whether those findings may upset or challenge our prior beliefs or not - which is easier said that put into action I know.
But even for a person who may not take the biblical word at face value (by faith), doesn't believe at all, OR does not believe in the personal Christian God, searches for how the world and its inhabitants came into being - they would surely be interested in looking at ancient fossils in order to find this out.
As a casual observer, you may not be aware of how many times this argument has been repeated on this forum. In fact, it was brought up again just the other day in a recent thread.
At any rate. Should a person who believes in the evolutionary process decides to check out the fossils, there poses a problem. The fossil record contains fully formed creatures - obviously functional and reproductive (since we find more examples of the same). Within most of those fully formed creatures, we find the same types of animals existing today. Whether differing in certain traits, or species, does not remove that reality.
Whether a person is an atheist or a theistic evolutionist - there is no viable proof that any such evolutionary process took place - whether one believes it began by chance and random occurances, or by a designer. One can imagine that an evolutionary scenario exists, but is it conclusive? Placing certain animals into an evolutionary sequence and then reporting this as the stages of evolution may not cut it.
The problem with that scenario is - If there really is an ordered fossil record that shows the stages of evolution in their sequences as claimed, how do they then explain the existence of supposed "missing links" existing around the sametime with the creatures they supposedly evolved into? This does not fit in with their claims of fossils showing the order of their evolution.
I have asked this before, but I still get taken around a cycle of excuses that once again, do not add up. Contradictions abound.
If you wish to check out ancient fossils, please do so
http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/ Simple life to complex? On the contrary, we are faced time and time again with developed life forms, NOT "developing". I do not equate "growth" with evolution. So just to clarify the differences. Since a tree has it's beginnings in a seed (acorn for example). Which came first (chicken or the egg)? The information for either a tree or a chicken must exist first. We need trees to exist before we can gain further trees from the information they contain (whether a cutting or a seed).
How does this happen if the inhabitants of this earth started off so apparently simple? How are seeds spread without the first parents being fully formed in the beginning? Did God simply start everything off simple form and await billions of years for his plan to unfold through time and process to come to fruition?
If so, why do the fossils fail to mirror this?
