Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?

Hi Archangel, Yes, your links do contain material about aliens. From the "World Mysteries" site - the one that you cited;

quote:

---

The high desert of Peru holds one of the most mystifying monuments of the known worldthe massive-scale geoglyphs known as the Nasca Lines. Ranging from geometric patterns to drawings of different animals and stylized human-like forms. The ancient lines can only be truly taken in, their forms discerned, from high in the air, leaving generations mystified as to how these precise works could’ve been completed long before the documented invention of human flight. Are the lines signs left by an alien race? Landing strips for UFOs? Relics of a ancient people far more advancedcapable of human flightthen previously imagined? Link

---

Patently absurd.But it's from the site that you cited. No-one made you cite a nutcase website, you chose to do that. If mention of aliens is enough to discredit a source (something I would agree with), then your own source is discredited. There is no reference to secular humanism in any of the pages you have cited. This is a link you chose, no-one forced you to link to garbage. Either your link is credible or it is not.I'm gonna go with "not".Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Archangel,First, you should know that this board allows you to respond directly to an individual message. It makes the flow of conversation much easier to follow. All you need do is, instead of hitting the "General Reply" button at the bottom of the page, you can click on the "Reply" button in the bottom right corner of each message. That's this one; It will just help you get your point across. Okay, on to your post. Actually, I deny some of it and I'm sure that I am far from the only one who denies that the Nazca Lines are linked to aliens. Further, I would describe most of the claims on that site as "unverifiable" rather than "unexplainable". *Ahem* That was you, in Message 133, mocking others for invoking aliens. Even though it was your own source that did so. Now you think that aliens are perfectly reasonable. You can't have it both ways Archangel. Either invoking aliens is reasonable and you were talking bollocks in message 133, or invoking aliens is unreasonable and you are talking bollocks now.So which is it? Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean that I have never considered it. It was not relevant to the point I was trying to make, nor the topic at hand.You appear to be making the assumption that the pictures were intended to be seen by some real entity. I find that unwarranted. In my opinion, the line pictures were intended to be seen by gods, spirits or some other supernatural entities. These entities would most certainly be fictions, but the line-makers would have believed in them.Remember, they don't have to make sense to us, they only have to had made sense to those who made them. Because the ground in the area is very hard and dry and there is almost no wind and no rain. There is no reason to suppose that it would be covered with sediment. Now I know I didn't say any such thing and you know I didn't say any such thing, so I can only wonder at why you would say something so peculiar. You seem puzzled as to why people disagree with your approach. I can't speak for others, but personally, I think you are making an unfounded logical jump.You say these things are mysterious, unexplained. Okay, suppose that we grant this, for the sake of argument. Why should we then, lacking any more familiar explanation, resort to invoking alien beings? We have never observed any aliens. Just because we don't have an explanation to hand for something, does not mean that it is legitimate to say "aliens did it". The "answer" raises far more questions than it solves and is based upon an unevidenced supposition. It's monstrously unparsimonious.The same applies to "Goddidit" explanations. Just because we do not have a ready explanation for something does not mean that we should simply reach for a divine or supernatural explanation, especially since such ideas don't really possess any explanatory power anyway. Quite the opposite I fancy. It means that I am humble enough and accepting enough of my own shortcomings that I don't expect to be able to answer every question. Thus, when I do encounter something I can't explain, I don't throw up my hands and say "Well if even I can't explain this it must be down to aliens/gods/pixies!". I am quite accustomed to the idea of not knowing everything. I have no need to reach desperately for unsupported nonsense as a substitute for real answers. I am content to wait and see if a real explanation is forthcoming; i.e. one supported by evidence, not one plucked out of my ass.But that's just me.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Archangel, Well, if you insist that the Bible is the absolute, literal, unaltered, unfaltering and infallible Word of God^TM then I agree; it does make God a liar.On the other hand, if you regard the Bible as a human document, authored by fallible men who were doing their best to describe the divine then I don't agree. Even if we suppose that the Bible is divinely inspired, it was still written by fallible humans. Perhaps they failed to get the whole perfect message across properly. Perhaps they misunderstood. Perhaps the message was distorted in between its original inspiration and its being written down.The Bible shows every sign of having been written by human authors. Humans screw up. They tried to describe the origins of the world, but they got it wrong. It's not really such a big deal. It's not undeniable at all. The human population was once much smaller than it is now. This is borne out by both fossil and genetic evidence. The world was around for a long time before we arrived.I would also point out, that whilst we may be more intelligent, creative and imaginative than other species, we are inferior to other animals in most other respects. I fail to see why intelligence should be singled out as being the most important characteristic. None. It doesn't say that. But then, why should it? And why should we attempt to understand the world by reading a religious text, when we can just study the world itself?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod