Well it all boils down to a few choices. What you choose is up to you.
Choice 1 The earth was created in 6 days by a god (And he is male)
Every living thing was put together in 6 days. You are here to repent for your sins, the one’s you created before you were even born, because the first one of you disobeyed the god, by eating an apple....

Choice 2 The earth was formed over millions of years, like the one’s we are observing throughout the universe today thanks to the Hubble Telescope, I mean science has proven these planets take millions of years to form, we have pictures! And there are billions and billions of planets like ours in an infinite universe.

Choise3 You don’t give a s-hit, wonder what my problem is, think it’s all by chance, one life, that’s it , it’s over. I’d like to think that this life is it. But it just makes to much sense to me that this isn’t just the only lifetime. I mean, why is there so much inequality with people throughout the world? Why are some people born into very good life situations, and other born into poverty, with some affliction, retarded, the list goes on and on.

Why do bad things happen to good people, and why do evil people live on? If there is an almighty god, who is absolute and powerful, what kind of god would let this happen? I was just watching the coverage of the tornado in Illinois, and the people killed. If there is a god, as described in the Christian bible, and those , or at least some of those killed were true believers, why would he have them suffer such a terrible death? Can you image being asleep at 2 am and you awaken to this terrible sound, and you and your house is sucked into the air? Your ripped apart by flying 4x4s and plywood, and your kids? What bad could a kid do to deserve to die like that at 4 years old like this? So, explain to me just how almighty your god is, how powerful he is, tell me about his love for ALL people. Convince me the earth was created , and all life, in 6 days.

Great observation Jeremy and great Questions too...
Might seem simple but that seems to cover it all.

Jeff

Jeremy - your oversimplification of Creationism is ridiculous.

Your other points, however, are well taken. These are questions that go through my mind on a daily basis - and I have a world-view that includes God. And you know what? I don't have an answer for you - at least one that you'll be happy with. I'm not happy with what I've come up with, and even that changes to some degree over time.

I believe that you are probably irritated by Christians that oversell their faith. They are excited about the answers that it provides in their lives personally, and choose not to go into detail about EVERYTHING when they proclaim it. Of course, as with all people, there are even some that don't think beyond their immediate surroundings.

With all of that said, there are explanations that are debated even within the Christian community. Tragic world events can be/are compatible with Christianity. Most of these conclude with you thinking - "Hmmm, there are some aspects of God that I don't necessarily find attractive." And of course, that is proof that there is no God (right?).

Let me give you more. As you study the old testament, you'll find the history of Israel. You'll see instances where God commands his chosen people to decimate other nations - including women and children. It seems God actively contributed to the spreading of tragedy - sometimes to people that we would see as innocent. For you animal lovers - God imposed a way for his chosen people to pay for their sins - and that involved the primitive slaying and burning of an innocent animal.

So yes, there are aspects of God's personality that I don't like or even understand personally (where's the lightning bolt?), and they seem incompatible with the love that He's infamous for. But, as with everything, there is more to it that you find when you believe and seek further. Would you think that something much bigger and even more complex (Audiorigami should appreciate this) than our universe would be fully comprehendable?

Now that we've established that we all are missing some answers, does our opinion affect the truth? Earlier in this discussion was a reference to relative truth - but that's an oxymoron. You've gotta give that up. If there is something true that exists, shouldn't you acknowledge it, whether you like it or not? If there is something that might be foundationally true, shouldn't you give it a chance? Especially since the alternative seems even more ridiculous (my conclusion)? I know that this is a very unpleasant way to sell something, and to a degree I'm selling Chrisitanity.

So, instead of pointing to where the answers don't lie, consider pointing to where they might. Don't load up your guns with a buttload of questions that you know someone isn't going to answer so you can feel good when you walk away not having understood anything new. And you'll remain unchanged, convinced of your intellectual superiority.

Zrocks - of course your points are well taken. Let me give you my take on it; this is an effort to make sure I am current. Most of my understanding of evolution comes from college 12 years ago. I'm wondering if there are any new takes on it.

Major evolutionary changes must occur in immediate big steps - meaning there must have been an ape that gave birth to a human being, and the explanation would be due to a random mutation. This human of course would reproduce with another ape and give birth to another human, and thus, this new species would take off given its ability to survive. Am I missing something?

dorkus

I think you would have to ask an evolutionists for an answer. Just as you would have to ask a creationist for an explaination of the details of that theory.

We are, in fact, more genetically related to other species (I believe it is an earthworm but I will have to check the facts) that apes. In other words, a mutation in an earthworm's DNA is more likely to be the stepping stone to man that an ape mutation. Gotta be really hard for the poor mother earthworm to give birth to a baby.

There is so little known at this point, that it is silly to squash one hairbrained theory for another just because one involves something you don't like.

I could be wrong but intelligent design does not involve a god, just a foreign intervention (presumably intelligent) of life on earth to account for existing gaps in evolutional theory. Gaps that do not seem to follow what would be considered normal origin of species according to Darwin.

Closer to a snail? I think not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3042781.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm

Like I said, I could be wrong.

I did read the articles. Interesting how every time a pertified monkey is dug up, it is the new missing link.

Personally, I think there is more to learn. I will do my best to cut away fake science and rely on real science.

zrocks: I think you're using the term "theory" incorrectly. Wikipedia says:

Note that evolution is considered a "theory" because of the evidence in its favor, quite the contrary of the way you use the word, namely, to imply lack of evidence.

You are also slightly mistaken as to the mechanisms of natural selection. One species does not give birth to another in one amazing, ludicrous step. What happens is that through environmental pressures, offspring with certain, slight, changes from its parents succeed and breed, and those without the change do not multiply as fruitfully. These slight changes happen generation after generation, and in the case of speciation it may take many thousands (or tens of thousands) of generations for an organism to differ substantially from its progenitors. Predation doesn't play as important a role as procreation.

All organisms in the wild can be said to compete for limited resources--food, shelter, mates. Limitation and competition go hand in hand with evolution by natural selection. Those with capable offspring reproduce more successfully, and replace or displace those without advantages. It's really quite simple.

Dorkus:

The last 20 years have seen amazing progress with regard to complexity, simply because even on your home computer you can model experiments which would have taken a supercomputer in the early 80's. I'd love to talk complexity, since it's truly an eye-opening topic. Take a look at Stephen Wolfram\'s website for his book, "A New Kind of Science." (Nick, I think you'd really dig it, too.) Wolfram is the author of the Mathematica computer program, and a genius who earned a Ph.D. at age 19. The entire book is available for free, online, with software you can download to demonstrate his discoveries.

To summarize some of his findings: the repeated application of simple rules to simple starting conditions can generate mind-boggling complexity. I look forward to hearing your impressions; it is truly exciting new research.

We can't really conceive of how long 3-1/2 million years is, which is when Lucy (the famous australopithicus skeleton dug up in 1972) lived. That's a very long time for small changes to evolve; at 15 years per generation (which is probably longer than they were at that time) you'd get about 233,333 generations.

It's not just survival of the fittest that affects evolution. There are random mutations in genes, and a biologist can tell you how many times that happens per thousand. At least for gorillas and people (Koko picked potential mates from pictures, in fact she called an ugly one "bad toilet!"), some individuals are sexier than others; other animals have simpler way of deciding who gets laid and who doesn't.

And there are other factors.

Also, I've posted before that this is ongoing. Some animals will survive global warming, for example, and that will alter the gene pool.

Here we go. This is the link I wanted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9136200/

It's *far* more likely that Darwin was on the right track than that he wasn't.