I guess you could say that I'm one of those "soft" people who believe in both. If there is an omnipotent omnipresent deity then what would a "day" mean to him? Just an idea, what does everyone else think? Am I crazy? : D
I don't think there is any reason to believe God needed to interfere with nature at some point and "start" evolution. Abiogenesis explains how life began. If anything, God may have been present at the very begining of creation, at the the Big Bang (I don't actually believe this but that is besides the point) in order to set up the universe the way it is to make our existance possible, but his interference at any other stage is not necessary.
Saying God interfered in the creation of life is like saying J.K.R. interfered in Harry Potter. God doesn't simply watch everything from afar, and move stuff around when He wants to change something. I believe, as the above commenters do, that evolution occured with God's promting and guidance, but (I can't think of a better way to phrase this) He pulls all the strings.
Don't you know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who produces pirates) is nothing in comparison to the Hovering Ramen Demon, who makes ninjas (NO RAMEN AND SPAGHETTI ARE NOT THE SAME THING. RAMEN IS AWESOMER).
"There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence."
- Like what? Could you be specific?-
One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually
- My god, your right, its not like millions of years of mutation, natural selection and a little bit of luck could have developed into multicellucar organisms-.
Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex
-Hmm, sounds like the watch maker argument on a tiny scale, It isn't like that argument has ever been criticised, or disproved in a book known as the blind watchmaker-
They needed every single chemical and part to function
-Wow, well, thats my belief in osmosis crushed-
Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. -Google archaeopteryx-
We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.
-Ok... out and out lying now-
However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books.
Isn't it amazing that we share so much of all that information with those ape looking things? Wow, god really tested my faith when he through that one in to existence
The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.
Wasnt this mentioned in paragraph one? Its like Paleys Watchmaker argument again, my god, get a new argument!
Creation has yet to give us a decent argument against evolution.