using up my 2 de post reply

graham [are not all irrationalities equal?
how can one absurdity be more or less absurd than any other?

surely both have equal absurdity [lol]
untill one proves its theory via science

only one claims the science method
BUT via deception of being a COMPLETE science
the other is stated to be via our belief [upfront]

so im irrational
yet fully able to confirm MY belief
[why i believe what i believe]

i studied genetics [a real science]
proved mendelic inheritors BY BREEDING and testing
but evolution ISNT a science
it is a theory

just look at the logic revealed by the facts so far
there is no attempt to explain to the topic
no attempt to explain the changes the first cell needs to do to become the first [or an evolved cell]

a priest will at least tell us of gensis

who predicted the dark deep [pre bang] 2 thousand years ago
then bang let there be light

then plants then fauna [as science later confirmed

here is my point
a child asks where do i come from?

the reply is either 'god'

or in time kid you will learn
about the THEORY of evolution

thats not where we came from [but its called science
cause that stops us thinking about it

thanks for allowing me to make a fool out of myself
,but who more foolish?
who more rational?

one who can explain
or one who cant?

UOG

Science itself evolves as we learn more and more, below is the latest hypothesis regarding the first cellular life. It is by no means the single answer - we may never know for sure. We can only evaluate evidence as we find it, which is why evolution is a very real and identifiable process:

"Scientists have identified the single chance encounter about 1.9 billion years ago to which almost all life on Earth owes its existence.

It saw an amoeba-like organism engulf a bacterium that had developed the power to use sunlight to break down water and liberate oxygen.

The bacterium was probably intended as prey but instead it became incorporated into its attacker’s body – turning it into the ancestor of every tree, flowering plant and seaweed on Earth. The encounter meant life on the planet could evolve from bacterial slime into the more complex forms we see today. “That single event transformed the evolution of life on Earth,” said Paul Falkowski, professor of biogeochemistry and bio-physics at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “The descendants of that tiny organism transformed our atmosphere, filling it with the oxygen needed for animals and, eventually, humans to evolve.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5114489.ece

UOG you are free to believe whatever you want, however that doesn't mean that everyone else should believe as you do when there is so much evidence to the contrary. As has been explained to you, Science is not about disproving god it is about understanding the natural world around us. From this research we have the very computer you are using to write your opinions on this website, that and every other piece of technology has come from research and testing and retesting ideas and theories.

Just because your bible doesn't mention it doesn't make computers imaginary.

PART 1 of 2
You are asking a question that cannot be answered in the way it was asked.

Perhaps you should be more specific. Start with what you mean by god. Which one, specifically.

Then specify what you mean by creation & what part what you mean by god plays in that process.
Then please tell me if you have a way of proving that god exists or do we assume that he/she/it does exist for the purposes of this discussion.

Then tell us a little about yourself. Age might help. Asking to be treated like a 5 year old doesn't you are one.

Now, do you want to discuss scientific naturalism (look it up on Google) in its own context or do you want to discuss your question in a metaphysical context (Google it).

I'll give some background to be fair. I'm an adult male born and educated in Australia and I went through the public school system. I have a bachelors degree.

I have considered many sides of the debate about the universe we live in and don't yet have a final answer. In fact I don't believe I ever will. Do you find that disturbing? I don't.

I *do* consider that biological evolutionary processes brought about by natural (and artificial) selection to be a viable proven theory and one that has been demonstrated by use of the scientific process to a sufficiently high degree of certainty to provide an explanation for the origin and development of life on our planet. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it. In fact I came to that understanding myself at the age of six.

What that means is that I don't see the need to put a supernatural god into the process to explain life. Not yet anyway. Perhaps you can convince me?

I look forward to somebody producing definitive evidence proving creationism, but please - no more references from documents that also tell of a flat earth, talking donkeys and so on.

Casting doubt on one theory does not automatically prove another one to be fact.

It's a bit like saying that elves exists because "who else would make Santa's toys?"

PART 2
Just yesterday, I was reading an article in Scientific American about how the most basic of life's chemicals can arrange themselves onto a 'scaffold' of clay in order to have a go at getting better at reproducing themselves. Interesting don't you think? (page 78, October).

These molecules can play a kind of game that can be described by maths. They had many many millions of years to play this game. You and I may well be the result of that game.

Count back approximately 2500 years and you'll find a bunch of guys called 'skeptikoi' (try Google again). At that time people worshipped many gods. Yet at that time they had already guessed there might be atoms. Since around 500 years ago the world rediscovered the classical age. We now call them skeptics. By the way, we have pretty good evidence for atoms. Maybe god made those?

By the way, today is world philosophy day. It derives from the Greek 'philos' & 'sophia' roughly meaning a love of wisdom.

I'm not a 'Darwinist' or 'Atheist' nor am I amoral or evil - but I *am* a critical thinker. So, when you're ready, let me know what your question actually *is* and what you mean by god. Try using a word processor first, it'll help with the spelling ;-)

Hope to hear from you soon!
[also - nice posts GrahamY & Fractelle]
Regards. PTP

only one serious response
raises the issue of ameba
an omnipresent little beast unchanged from the beginning]

go figure my brother
in researching your ameba i found only more about
how impossable evolution is

http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Creation/creation-not-evolution-4.htm

here is a quick quote

The common ameba is found in fresh water ponds,and ranges in size from an invisible microscopic animal to one that reaches a diameter of about half a millimeter,visible to the naked eye as a tiny white speck.
Each ameba is a little mass of gelatinous protoplasm,containing many granules and droplets.The protoplasm is covered with a delicate cell membrane.
In many ways this strange little creature bears witness to its Creator.(1)The Ameba is gifted with many Strange Abilities for a Microscopic Animal.
It can crawl;it can breathe(though it has no lungs or gills);
it can distinguish inert particles from the minute plants and animals on which it feeds;
it can thrust out its jelly-like body at any point to lay hold of its food;
it can digest and absorb its food;

though it has no feet,it crawls by projecting "pseudopods."

Such a strange little creature could not"just happen."One cannot fail to see in these abilities the Hand of the Creator.(2)

The Ameba moves around by means of "Ameboid movement," projecting a "pseudopod"(false foot)from any part of its body.Because of this it changes shape when it moves or engulfs food,

hence its name — "ameba" (derived from a Greek word meaning "change").

The "legs" of an ameba are temporary,and soon flow back into its body,when it stops moving or completes the ingestion of food particles.

This is totally different from the muscular movements of higher animals. Who designed it?Moreover, if the ameba is about to "swallow" an active organism,
the pseudopods are thrown out widely and do not touch or irritate the prey before it has been surrounded;but when the ameba is about to ingest a quiescent object,such as a single algal cell, the pseudopods surround the cell very closely.

Apparently the ameba can "think" even though it has no brain

so logus/logic came before the first cell?