Evolution is True Because Life Needs It

This is such an interesting discussion, but it ultimately is sidetracked from what the thread is ultimately all about.The reason biblical creation is not literal is because, as I said before, it provides no mechanism for survival. All things in the universe are constantly changing; for life not to do so would mean we wouldn't exist.Ultimately, there is no one firm scientific model for creation; hence to scientifically explain it is not logical.Another stab at it is simply the number of animals filling in similar niches. Take for instance, the sauropod dinosaurs. Dozens have been discovered, and they all generally did the same thing: Graze.
Matter of fact, I recently saw a program on a newer sauropod, Nigersaurus. This sauropod was built simply to sit there and graze. the animal's head was pointed downwards, and the mouth was very wide with sharp teeth on the end. And that is jut one. These animals had a great impact on the fauna of the land; for modern day and previous herbivores to compete and prosper as they did (Auroks and related, rhinos, horses, giraffes, wildebeast, herbivoruous synapsids). Hence the ideas the biblical creationist suggest would create a great ecological imbalance.Thats my two cents for now.

To Mr. Portilo, That is kinda a classical biblical creationist argument that sidetracks from the issue at hand.If you could provide me with a good scientific model for biblical creation, not just one saying "evolution couldn't do this so this had to happen" like I often get from bc's I would appreciate it.I really appreciate you participating in my thread! Thank you!

As this seems to have been forgotten... Ok, you accept that some major physical changes can happen during evolution.
e.g. from large to small, from hairy to hairless.Next question...Do you accept that this:could evolve into this: ?

Hi Panda. Could you identify the animals for me. It looks like a cat and a fox?

Correct.

Thanks. I will answer your question as soon as I can.

Still ignoring the topic at hand.

This is my first post and perhaps my only post. I have been perusing many posts tonight and I can certainly see why there aren't many creationists posting here, as one commenter pointed out, given the repeated insults and condescending remarks. Basically anyone who discounts the evolution model is a religious nut job or a laughable fanatic of some sort.As a believer in creation (ID) it seems to me that the evolution hypothesis attempts to build its case from the 2nd floor up. It cannot reasonably explain the origin of the "primordial ooze" from whence all life originated from. Something does not come from nothing. All life and the perfect order of the universe could not have come into existence by random chance. There probably will never be a "scientific model" for creation that will satisfy the other camp since any such model would be deemed religious in nature and not "superior" to the "accepted" evolutionary model. I guess the bottom line is it takes faith to believe either argument which ironically makes evolution a form of religion. Creationists have nothing to lose...if we're wrong then we all die like dogs and this life is all there is...

Get someone else to debate you. Im preparing to answer Pandas question.

What a pitiful, sad, dismal, pathetic statement. As a Christian is is simply sad that there are still Christians that have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing in the fantasy called Creationism.You have been taught that Creationism is some basic tenet of Christianity when the truth is that most major recognized branches of Christianity understand that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the diversity of life seen today.Fortunately God is great and once you die and go to heaven God will have a remedial 101 level course to help the Creationists finally move into reality and truth.

Evolution does not need to explain origins. Any of several different origins could just as easily have led to the evolution that we see. How do you know? How do you know? What we have seen to date is that religion relies on dogma and scripture and the like while science relies on evidence, and evidence that has been well-tested. Religion ignores or denies any evidence that contradicts dogma and scripture, while science changes theories to accommodate any evidence that contradicts previous theories. No, the bottom line is that religion relies on dogma and scripture and the like while science relies on evidence and testing that evidence to produce theories. Religion sticks to dogma and scripture no matter what, ignoring or denying anything that contradicts belief, while science changes as the evidence requires. There is no faith required for science, just evidence. In that, science is the exact opposite of religion.I hope you stick around; you might just learn something here.

"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." Believing in creationism is not a basic tenet of Christianity? Really? I could care less what other branches believe. Truth does not rely on what others think or feel is right.

Truth is. Evolution is. As a beginning you can think of it as a way to explain "how God did it".But there is still hope for you, God will see that you at least get a chance to learn. Of course, as in all courses it will be up to you to pay attention and actually study the material.GOD is far grander than the picayune little bling-bling pimp daddy worshiped by the Creationists.

Evolution does not need to explain origins? Exactly my point - building an argument from the 2nd story up. How do I know something doesnt come from nothing? Because it can't and it doesn't - logically and scientifically. (thermodynamics) You've heard this example before but it bears repeating...take apart a car and then blow up the parts and then parts re-form into the car (big bang). Anti-creatiionists cannot even explain where the "parts" came from. "Science relies on evidence", as opposed to logic and common sense in this case I suppose. Not that there is any shred of concrete evidence to support your hypothesis. You better believe I stick to scripture and I believe every word. God states He created everything in the beginning - seems as if the burden of proof is upon you to prove otherwise. You have made a choice to not believe because God is not something we can fully wrap our minds around so we look for other ways to explain the origins of life aka pride. I would disagree there is no faith required to believe your dogma.

I'm not sure where you stand exactly to be honest so its hard to know how to respond. You state God is far grander - grander than what? But not grand enough to speak the universe into existence? I worship the God of the Bible. What God are you referring to?