Belief in God is scientific.

I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God

I mean unplanned changes. Would it sound more like evolutionist language if I refer to it as "random mutations". Isn't that the way evolution is suppose to happen? Because just a small part of your genetic information (genotype) is expressed physically in your body (Phenotype). You look slightly different respective to your parents but still the genetic information is the same. I know there are mutations in the process and they contribute to the variation but that doesn't really mean there is "evolution" in process

Any living thing no matter how small and simple looks, is far too complex, has got far too much parts interacting together to be the result of unplanned events Would you say you don't need any faith to accept the theory of evolution? you can read this website or any other, or any book. That alone is not evidence at all, you are just believing in what other people is writing, you are basically having faith in them

I happened to have secular education and be feed evolutionist doctrine. I have the experience of living and observing the world around me, I have critical thinking to see that things just don't make sense from an evolutions perspective, I keep improving my skills and opening mi mind to understand God's works. And I am honest to recognize that God did it all, no matter if you think I am silly, uneducated, unexperienced, uncritical, unskilled and dishonest You are just assuming that evolution is a fact, but nevertheless. So you are a Devout Christian, but you cherrypick and decide what to believe from the Bible and what not. If you can't believe when God tells you how He made everything, how can you believe the texts about Jesus, and why did he even bothered dieing in the cross if Adam and Eve never even existed to sin and curse God's creation?

I have more knowledge than I had before. That's why I couldn't accept evolution anymore. The more I learn the weaker that theory looks. All you need to do is realize that evolution and science are not the same thing

What you read of a book and listen from an expert has necessarily to be right? Yeah the experimentation sounds more like science to me... could you give an example of what research have you done and what made you come to a conclusion that supports evolution? Evolutionary theory is not a science. It is a perspective from which you approach the natural phenomena that you want to study. To do science you need to reproduce by experiment your hypothesis. How can you reproduce the origin of life from non-life and changes in organisms leading to other species?

For example I have learnt that for life to be possible you need DNA which contains the necessary information to make up a given living thing; RNA to transport the information and proteins to build the actual living thing. How can you possibly have all this much together without nobody making it happen? that is nonsense for me. How could the information in the DNA make itself? how could the chains of amino acids that form the proteins appear by accident and get it just right? you know the simple and weak explanation provided by evolutionary theory: "given enough time and opportunities anything is possible". I just don't buy it anymore Edited by Ossat, : Missed a word that change my meaning

Thanks for the video,While it is very interesting, it stills doesn't answer my questions. maybe I was not clear enough, but In my last post I was talking about origins of life. In the video the professor shows how random arrangements in the genetic pool can produce robust networks that show patterns like the black stripes in the fruit fly. That it fine, it doesn't either supports evolution or refuses creationism. As I have seen life, God created us all with the possibility of variations like the ones shown by the professor. But this doesn't involve that in a million years from now you will have different species as a result of this random production of functional networks. You will still have flies at best.my question still stands, how this immense range of possibilities could've come from nothing?

Thanks for your correction but for the evolution theory to be true the abiogenesis needs to be true as well, because the first is based on the second. I wont't deal with the flaws of evolution at this point. I just wanted to point that not even origen of life is proven by science. abiogenesis is just an attempt to try to explain how life appeared, like panspermia, it's just hard core mental gymnastics to come up with explanations on how life could have appeared by itself

You wanna believe I didn't have any education? Go on, believe it, I don't mind....

Hi Percy,I don't agree with the idea that something can be considered scientific just because the majority believes in it. But Intelligent design and creation can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough to recognize that the universe, the nature and life are far too complex to be an accident. It's for me evident that all of this must have been created, there is not other possibility. Let's say you are a forensic anthropologist examining with scientific rigor the place where somebody died. You have all the knowledge to be able to determine if the victim died of an accident or if someone killed him. Is the same with the universe, is clear for me that somebody did it. Regards

...It's gotta be God!!

I may trust in what my doctor say, but couldn't say they will always be right, regardless how much they have studied they are still people and have biases and prejudices.Of course experience helps in accuracy, not argument against thisBut when it comes to evolutionary or any issue relating distant past I become very skeptic as many things (like origin of life) cannot be reproduced by experiment an so leave space for biased conclusions of the researcher according to his/her own mindsets. science may be very accurate, but is still practiced by subjective people You are happy to 'believe' what you were taught. You are not the only one who believes things, everybody does, but many don't want to recognize that they consider something to be true as long as they believe in it, rather than have a real evidence to support their theories

That is a conclusion rather based on the biases of the evolutionists, that's all it is Romans 5: 12-15{5:12} Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned: {5:13} (For until the law sin was in
the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
{5:14} Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to
come. {5:15} But not as the offence, so also [is] the free
gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much
more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by
one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. So, nothing of God in Jesus, was just a human and only a human?The second story in Genesis is not meant to be a sequence of events in the order they happened, like the first. There's not contradiction

I would agree in the extent that unplanned changes can cause variation between species, which doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the Bible Does each dice in that example represents an individual? Every time you roll the dice one generation goes? If so, how can you have natural selection without affecting the population? Wouldn’t does dices that aren’t number six, the less fit ones, perish in the process, leaving you with, say, 18 survivors (number sixes) after many times rolling the dices? Doesn’t natural selection takes its toll on the less fit?Or do the 100 dices represent an individual and each time you roll the dices one generation goes? If so, let’s say you have in the beginning a non-winged individual, and after many times after you have roll the dices and many generations (thousands of years if you wish) have passed, when all the dices are number six, you have a winged individual which for some reason is fitter for a given environmental condition. How could in the beginning natural selection favor the individual that has got some dices with the number six (step two in your example) setting aside those dices with number six? Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?