The Great Compromise

Has anyone ever considered the fact that neither evolution or creationism actually contradict?Evolution: The creation of new types organisms by a complex series of genetic modifications and natural selection.Creationism: The creation of the universe and all thats in it by god(s for you polytheistic types)In their most basic sense it means that god created the universe, big bang, and all of its/his/her laws are merely tools for making sure that every thing runs smoothly.Couldn't god use evolution, knowing that humans would be created as a result?Would it be so overreaching to assume that god created the universe in such a way that with the laws as he created, (physics, gravity, magnetism, chemistry, ect.), to cause the big bang to unfurl in such a way that it would create the earth and know that intelligent life would spring up in an exact way? (God is omnipotent after all.)A very simplified example of this is John Conway’s Game of Life. By using very simple rules a combination of cells will always produce the same effect no matter how many times you restart the game.Conway's Game of Life - WikipediaThis in mind: unless you believe that the earth jumped from the head of god fully formed, that the laws of the universe are subject to sudden change (i.e. 2+2=5 or fluctuating gravity), that the entire earth (including New Zealand) was covered by water, that a very small boat held every life form on earth for a month and a half with out losing any thing, that the entire human race was developed from several Jewish people on the so said boat (every one else died, didn't they?), or that George Bush is the new son of god (a select five of you out there) then their is no possible way this could work and I don't think I could change your mind. Other wise I believe this is a good solution for a peaceful compromise.Best wishes!

Oh wonderful!
I'm glad that this isn't a new idea because it seems so simple!Re: crashfrog
This is for the purpose of showing that the two are not incompatible, not that there is a god (however much I would hope otherwise), so that it is less proving god rather than proving a point.Re: Dr Adequate
Your thinking style is so western! In the eastern philosophy the journey (however imperfect it is) is just as important as the ending. As well as the fact that theoretically if god didn't want an imperfect step he would not give us the chance to sin and turn away from him, be thankful that you are given a choice! (also humans are very stupidly designed, who puts the optic nerve in backwards? I personally think god would have done a better job.)
edit: if this applies to what you where talking about then take as written, but feel as if you are trying to say something different, ignore this Re and don't randomly put quotes in and expect me to read your mind! (mine is in large print, small words, and lots of pictures!)
edit edit: also make it clear who you are talking about, I'm assuming that your quotes deal with me; but i still can make out whether they are saying 'good job!' or 'you idiot!'. (I like context!)Edited by Utrimque, : Possible Misinterpretation Edited by Utrimque, : No reason given.

Just as a reminder: I have wonderful insight and thinking, but can read between the lines like a two year old! Make things clear!I.E. in regards to so-and-so's statement. . . (this would help a lot!)

'Theistic evolution' is merely a way of showing that the universe could run in a specific way with god's intent or without. I'm not saying that you need to believe in god in order for life to run smoothly (if that was the case then people would be bursting into flames more often) I am using this as a point to show that creationism doesn't have to mean that the earth was created in the last 6 thousand years, and it doesn't exclude evolution. It's less of a compromise and more of a demonstration. As well as the fact that death isn't a bad thing, it's necessary for the continuation of life, because if nothing dies then all the nutrients become used up and causes a general mess. It is a quiet and simple system that causes change when needed and prevents it when unnecessary. Personally a static list of species would be more cruel, for if the temperature changed a few degrees we would loose all of our diversity.

Wow! This is like walking into the middle of a paintball match with only a shirt and some shorts. Nobody seems to like me! (you probably do, you just don't agree with me)Crashfrog, you're as likely to make me an atheist as you're going to make a rock evolve. I'm not saying that my opinions or my science is derived on god. It's like saying the paint is white because it reflects most of the light hitting it or saying it is white because that is the color the artist chose, in some peoples mind only the former is true, and other refuse that light is involved. I'm saying I view both as equally correct statements and that neither negates the other, not that the artist existence affects the fact that white paint reflects light.I also think YECs are ridiculous,and if I expected people to be rational I wouldn't be posting here!
As well as the fact that if someone knew that god was or wasn't perfect then I want his phone number!

What a nice change of pace!
Thank you so much for your assurance, it's nice to know that my first post is such a nice argumentative point is wonderful and I will most definitely continue to post.