Verified answer

Probably because we'd all be ejected from our respective churches if we did that. Besides, with so many limbs, branches and twigs of Christianity, it's highly unlikely that there'll be much agreement at such a Conference.

Well of course he didn't say we came from apes. He was a scientist! No scientist has ever made such a ludicrous comment. This idea came from religious fundamentalists, who make ludicrous comments partially out of ignorance of basic science, and partially in the hopes that other ignorant people will associate their ludicrous statements with science, rather than with themselves, and conclude that science is therefore ludicrous. That's what is really so sad about these people - the basic dishonesty of their methods. But of course there are no valid arguments against evolution that can be presented, so I guess they have to work with what they have - nothing.

I agree that we all need to seek answers about our vast universe starting with how we got here. I only know of two possibilities: 1. We were created by something intelligent or 2. we were created un-intelligently.

I don't want to be egotistical but to argue that we are un-intelligently made is un-intelligent. If life randomly happened back a million years ago, then why don't we have life continuing to randomly occur on earth? What made it stop?

And considering that the earth has cooled from being a ball of lava to just having a lava core to today, why haven't scientist calculated the number of degrees the earth cooled since life first started and demonstrated how warming a couple degrees is going to be "life threatening" instead of “lifestyle threatening?”

Since volcanoes "naturally pollute" the environment with more toxic gases than man and since there was no living thing to "clean" the environment, how could this be the ideal environment for life to begin and also now threaten our existence?

It should not be assumed that a random cell coming to life would "know" how to change light into food or "know" reproduce by definition of random. So some intelligent explanation has to be given of how this single cell changed genetically to allow both to occur before it died. Since it wouldn't know what death was, there was no urgency for it to move as quickly as this theory must conclude it randomly occurred. Then it has to be explained how other cells didn't inherit this most important characteristic of this most important cell but knowing how to change light into food and reproducing did.

Given the laws of evolution would begin at this point, it needs to be explained how nature then balanced itself since self preservation or the survival of the fittest would never include mutating to its total opposite: living off its waste and even eating the original species. And then it needs to be explained when we add new species to an existing ecosystem why "nature" doesn't balance herself as she once did.

All beliefs have to start from creation and develop from that point. If it can't survive the creation question, then it doesn't matter how good the rest of it sounds.

If life randomly occurred, then it is ridiculous to say life has a purpose or meaning since only the creator of life can give purpose or meaning to the living. Having products do what they are suppose to do is why people demand warrantees from manufacturers and why courts don't demand warrantees to be paid when a person uses a product differently than its intended use.

Without purpose, there is nothing on which to base right or wrong. Therefore, there is no difference between someone loving you intensely or causing your intense suffering since “better” has to have a purpose to be meaningful.

The only thing left is to attempt your natural lust, greed and thirst for power by every means possible. And hey, who could tell you that you shouldn't. You are the god and center of your universe that everyone is to revolve around.

"Everyone wants to rule the world." Sting

Christianity is a slap in the face of reason. Evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only a fool believes the bible's version of creation. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept reality, or you accept christianity.

Desiree, you are constantly not accepting my Point God created the earth, by His spoken word... Evolution has no place there... Evolution too is not proven... didn't you follow it when Evolution and Creation went to court versing each other neither won.. .

To say evolution is science is anti-knowledge... science begins with hypothesis which evolution has never left the first stage - HYPOTHESIS, it has been tested and failed... You cannot prove difinitively that God did not CREATE the world... so by all accounts we both beleive in something that connot be proved by science...

Because the Christian world is full of different interpretations and different kind of people that not necessary wants to agree with the others.

The basic problem is it doesn't match Genesis at all in time frame, mechanism, order, or even the end result. They really don't want to discuss it because they would have to face that fact.

Working with the truth takes effort. But just believing god takes no thought or effort. Most typical humans take the easy route.

At least 65% accepts Darwin's basic tennants.

What is NOT acceptable is ACCIDENTAL creation and the thing DARWIN never said, which is about us coming from Apes. Darwin NEVER, as far I know, formally said WE CAME FROM APES.

the Bible talks about truth mixed with error stay away from it. It has a way of pulling you in even when you think it's right.