What was God’s plan behind Creation and why does he need one?

God isn't doing this, we are.Sense we all have free will to do as we please, some of my choices may indirectly and/or directly affect you. So if I choose to blow-up a plane to make some political statement, the very same plane you and your family are flying on, it isn't God condemning you, it is I. Likewise, if I decide to become a heroine addict and use all my financial resources to feed my addiction instead of feeding my family, it isn't God who is condemning my children, it is I.

Using this as a foundation then, explain how senses like smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing and speech evolved. Please include how concepts like smell, taste, sight were introduced. How does an evolving sightless creature even know what sight is? Why would this creature use biological resources over hundreds (thousands? millions?) of generations to develop organs to capture light when it doesn't even know/understand what light is?

We do this very thing all the time - we have children! From a parenting POV, I try to raise my children with certain rules, but it is their choice to obey them or not and face the consequences of their decisions. More importantly though, it isn't the rules, but the meaning behind the rules that I stress to my kids. Try looking at the 10 Commandments again, and ask what is the purpose behind "Thou shalt not kill"? Why would killing be bad? We have a 'No hurting rule' here and one reason I stress to my kids is that chances are, if you're striking out at your sibling, you're acting out of anger and anger can easily escalate out of control. I tell them that them need to control their anger and come to me and we will deal with the problem.

Species A and B mutate randomly and "natural selection" (curious term that implies something is making a decision) occurs.Species A's mutations allow it to become stronger/faster/bigger/healther (pick one)Species B's mutations start to develop optic nerves, corneas, lens, etc.Wouldn't "natural selection" then always favor Species A? It can out muscle B for food, or it can get to the food faster, or it can survive more variables as to climate.Again, we're accepting that it would take Species B millions of years to evolve/develop these specialized organs. During those same millions of years, it is competing against Species A for food/shelter/territory.

J.U.C., hooah212002, DrJones and all.I'm new here and think this is great - "Understanding through Discussion" - exactly what we need more of IMO.Thanks for the question, posts and replies!~3DSOC

Whether vision is superior to strength, speed and/or size isn't the point. According to evolution, it would have taken hundreds of generations for a species to develop sight while their competitors are using the same time to get bigger/stronger/faster.So I'm not comparing species that have sight with species that are bigger/stronger/faster, I'm comparing a species that is attempting to develop vision with other species that are developing into bigger/stronger/faster creatures.Wouldn't a bigger/stronger/faster species be favored over a species that is developing sight - but doesn't have sight?Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

I hope this isn't to overly simplistic of an answer but there is a saying that goes something like "It isn't the destination, its the journey."Life is a journey. Life is a series of experiences. Sure, God could have created man with knowledge of everything, but I believe He wanted us to experience life for ourselves.As to "why did God create us in the first place?", I don't have an answer for you.

Hi Apothecus!I'm still relatively new to this board and apologize if I've made a 'newbie' mistake. I was under the impression that this particular forum was more opinion based, how could anybody but God answer the question that launched this thread?Allow me to clarify my original post and forgive me if this is still a 'strawman' arguement.Species A & B are two fish-like organisms (I was actually thinking more like single celled organisms)Neither A or B has sight.In 100 generations, species A will have sight.In 100 generation, species B will be twice as strong.At generation 50, species A will not have sight while species B in 50% stronger.If species A and B are vying for the same food/shelter/territory, wouldn't 'natural selection' favor species B at generation 50?

LOL - love the Borg reference!!Completely WAY off topic (sorry) - What did you think of the new StarTrek?~3DSOC

Thanks for the welcome!I have not found any estimates for how long it took any species to develop sight. Of the estimates I have seen, 400,000 years was the least amount of time scientist believe it took for primitive eyes to develop into complex eyes. Based on that figure, using 100 generations seemed pretty fair to me.I am learning quite quickly that some members are really strict in terms of presenting only facts. To understand a topic, IMO, a person doesn't simply memorize the facts. I do not understand how senses such as sight are explained by evolution. I was presenting what I thought was a very reasonable scenario highlighting one problem I find in the theory.

Point well taken, we could come up with countless hypothetical scenarios that are plausible. I was trying to present a scenario that was closer to probable - a larger species would probably dominate a smaller species. Weed out the plausible, review the probable and see what you can conclude. If a larger species would probably dominate a smaller species (all things being equal), why would the smaller species survive? That's where I'm at.There are so many components to all of this, it isn't easy for me to pare down my thoughts/questions/concerns to exactly one issue. Like another member posted somewhere on here "iron sharpens iron" - with less than a week on this site, I'm definitely not iron yet.

Apothecus, I do apologize for being so 'messy' with my posts and thanks for taking the time to wade through them!100 was just a nice round number easily divisible by 2. It also seemed that 100 was very generous in terms of rapidly developing eyesight. The actual number would probably be much higher if we use 400k years as our time span.The point I was trying to make, was that at some point during the evolution of these two species, one species would still be blind while the other, although blind as well, is much larger/stronger/faster/etc. and so therefore would have a distinct advantage.Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

Sorry for the confusion DrJones, unfortunately I didn't articulate my scenario clearly in my earlier posts. I was not comparing a large, blind creature with a small creature that can see.

The subtitle of the site is "Understanding through Discussion".I am trying to understand evolution through this discussion. I presented a realistic scenario based on my understanding. Several members have posted replies with various reasons as to why my scenario is incorrect/inaccurate/muddled and/or why they disagree.I don't think demeaning/insulting and/or making assumptions about what knowledge fellow members possess is doing any good nor is it based in facts.Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

I'm hung up mostly on the 'why?' and as a result, its muddling up most of my posts.It seems to me that a species would devote a lot of energy over a multitude of generations to develop organs capable of detecting light - while competing species may be growing larger over the same period of time. This seems to place the first species at a disadvantage to the second and would therefore be at risk of extinction.Why aren't we all sharks?!