I don't think any of these things need to either/or options. What's wrong with thinking or believing that God created the circumstances leading to the Big Bang and evolution?

I don't understand the conflict in the theories of creation. Maybe the scientific evidence of the physical creation of the universe and this planet is just the nuts and bolts of how God did his work. Probably just the tip of the iceberg. God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days does not mean his days are the same length as ours. Keep in mind the bible was written and interpreted by men. Perhaps God's "day" is the equivalent to us of millions of years.

Isn't it possible that the Creator (God) caused the Big Bang? Personally the theory that God created 'man' out of dust doesn't hold when Adam and Eve's children went out in the world and met their mates.

I dont believe in the big bang and i have trouble with God. i believe in evolution as there is proof and i also believe that if there is a god that that god could have made evolution just like he made everything else and to separate the two just sounds like useless bickering when one has been proven and one cant be disproven

Big Bang theory. Other wise if God made man one would need to explain why man came about 4,600 billion years after the birth of the universe. Why did he wait so long ? Our sun is a third generation star. Why didnt he use a first generation one. If God made us, it could only have been indirectly. Maybe he started the big bang, which led to the conditions for man to grow.

You go ahead and believe in Evolution and I will go on believing in God’s Creation! When we die, if there was no God we both might win, but what if there was a God? I hope I will win, but where will you be then? In my book being a good Christian is a Win Win situation!

Neither really... both seem far-fetched. But there's more evidence for the Big Bang.

Well, when you consider that man is made up of carbon and water (among other things) I don't see that as a stretch. Remember that the Bible was not meant to be a scientific textbook, but when it does touch on science - it is accurate. It is possible that what is called "The Big Bang" is simply evidence of what process God did use in creation.

I believe God created the heavens and the earth. With the Big Bang theory, where did the dust come from that "exploded?" It just doesn't make sense. No matter which theory you believe, it always comes back to God creating it, whether you believe He set the Big Bang in motion or created it all in 7 literal days. BTW, Adam and Eve's sons (Cain, Seth, and their other sons) married their sisters (all unnamed - we aren't told if Abel was married). Yes, sounds gross to us. But if there weren't any other people on earth yet, then who else is there? Also, the gene pool wasn't as diverse as it is today, so there wouldn't be any problems for at least a few generations before you'd start getting problems with the children.

You seem to be addressing two separate (but linked) issues here - evolution vs. divine creation of man and Big Bang vs. divine creation of the universe. I personally subscribe to the non-divine theories. All the evidence, from Darwin onwards, points to evolutionary theory. And the evidence shows that theory holds not just for humans, but at a cellular level, all eukaryotes (with the ribosomal nucleic acid sequences differeing in origin from the nucleus sequences). Then you have gross morphological sequences of beak size and shapes to adapt to different environments on birds, alterations in skulls of human ancestors, even why people like to eat foods high in fat! Whereas the evidence I see for God creating the earth is simply a book, and one which has been shown to have many conflicting paradigms within itself, and one that has been the subject of immeasurable amounts of controversy surrounding the authenticity of information contained within and excluded from it, mostly authored/doctored by the church itself. I suppose you could realistically write a book that accurately portrayed Hitler as a leader with exceptional leaderhip qualitites, who revolutionised the state of Germany and vastly improved industry output, expanding the political boundaries by huge amounts and basically creating an immense empire that became a true world superpwer, but then leave out all the mass atrocities he committed against millions and millions of people. Had you no prior knowledge of him and his legacy at all, you could be manipulated and fooled into believing he was a great person who loved and served his country and made unparalleled improvements to it. Perhaps not the best analogy I've ever come up with, but it was the first thing I could think of. You get my point though.

I beleive God created then set evolution in motion and stepped back and let nature take its own course. I believe that it took 7 days to create, but don't know how long each of those days was...they may have been millions of years long each..since *time* is a human concept. I really do not understand the mindset that evolution and belief in God is an either/or concept.

First of all. Evolution has NOTHING (absolutely NOTHING, and I can't stress that enough. NOTHING AT ALL) to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory is not a perfect theory, but it still explains more than the bible does. The bible tells us nothing (acctually excactly as much as the correlation between Evolution and the Big Bang.) Secondly. God didn't make the earth. It may not be easy, but it is that simple. Deal with it, and get on with your life. If you do believe that God made earth, you have a problem. Which do you believe in? Should you take the bible litteraly? The bible have two slightly different versions of the the flood, so which one is correct? How do you decide which is correct? Because frankly none is backed up by any evidence and none is plausible. And should you believe in the bible at all, why not believe in the Norse version, and why not any other thousand versions that is backed up by excactly the same amount of evidence as the bible is? Believe in a God-made earth is problematic, believing in the scientific theories is not, because you can, and must, admit that it might be proven wrong at any time. Believing in God is being certain about something you can not possibly know nothing about. Believing in science is being certain about only the very things you know everything about.

Personally I believe the theory of evolution is more likely than us being created instantaneously from dust. Whether that encompasses a God or Gods is another matter. I am agnostic so I am unsure as to the existence of a deity and I think it would be possible for a God or Gods to create us through something like evolution but I also think it would be possible without any deity involved. I am not sure if the big bang theory is correct - I think the creation of the universe in that sense is incomprehendable to mankind but I wouldn't rule out the BBT.

god is the creator. i mean evalution and the big bang thereory don't make sense, how can the earth just BOOP! and its there, and humans are just so complicated there had to be a creator. did you know that if you took all the veins out of you body and lined them up they would wrap atound the world 2 and a half times. how can that be without a creator? and look at all the proof in the world that there is a god. half the bible is about god saying he is going to do things and a quarter of that has already happened.so since there is a god and he says the bible is true then i beleve it.period.

The bible is not a scientific text book. Science is all about the "how?" but the bible is all about "why?" Science is a little ingenuous in that it has a theory as to how things happened and will not consider that they might just have some issues wrong. It will not consider that God could be part of the picture. This is bad science as it discounts another theory by rubbishing those of a different opinion. It is true that Christianity has an equally bad track (or worse) record in the same area but that comes from ignorance rather than bible truth. The Bible merely states that God created and that in six days. You can follow the argument elsewhere to discover the difficulties in the etymology of the text and see that all is not as cut and dried as has been argued by well meaning Christians. All of that is not really the point As a Christian I believe that God did create. Man came from one stem; Adam not ape and that because Adam sinned all mankind ever since has been infected by sin. The bible states that as fact but then goes on to reveal a God who is so in love with mankind that He has done all that is necessary in order to bring mankind back into fellowship with Him! That is :God's main concern.

The biggest mistake is to try to “figure” out God scientifically or by intellect. He has made sure, that He is unreachable that way. Both intellect and science is closely linked to a capacity of the individual, which is linked to culture, environment, geography, age, economics, IQ, wealth etc… There is a better way… the Faith. It’s universal, no language barriers, and it’s a gift of God. Every human has been given a measure of it (Romans 12:3), and we all experienced it, (or lack of it.) Its purpose is to communicate and to bring one to God. It’s also the proof that we are spiritual beings. The faith light’s the way, but by no means we “have to” follow its nudging, we have been given a will to make choices, and so we do them. We will however, reap what we sow… Faith is not a science, never will be, like wisdom, it makes it self available only be being practiced. In return – it reveals its source (God), and yields life.

I beleive both,god created the big bang,god make these single cell organisms and allowed them to evolve,and here we are,Isnt that possible?

I, being a Christian, believe that God created the Heavens and Earth. I believe that He wanted us to come to Him of our own free will, so He left out and added some information for us to deal with. I believe that God has all of the answers to our questions and one day, hopefully I'll remember some of them, I will get a chance to take a walk with Him and ask. He may just hold a huge conference and take questions so He doesn't have to answer the same questions so many times!! In His service, <:))))<>< "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:21

i believe god created us :)

I really don't see any conflict. The world was created through evoloution and at a specific point man was created in God's image and put here. Even the bible says that the Garden of Eden was made before man was. I see no conflict with the two views. They fold neatly togather. Every attempt to trace man back through evoloution comes to "the missing link". Perhaps because there is no link. At that point man was inserted on this earth. What came before is in the fossil record.

Darwin didn't posit that we evolved from apes and monkeys. They are a separate branch of evolution and we share a common ancestor. But as to which I believe, the evidence and science win out -- evolution.

well I feel that god caysed either direct evolution or caused the aliens to intervien and then evolve . (creation through evolution

The DNA of both humans and apes is a good proof of evolution, apes evolving into humans, developing a bigger brain capacity. Read please http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html and http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/humevol.html

How about both? They aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe that God began the process that we call evolution. Even that he has monitored the process, seeing that it goes in the direction planned.

Evolution ALL THE WAY. I cannot understand how anyone can think the Adam and Eve story is true, when we have physical evidence of the existence of pre-evolved man eg. homo erectus which had a distinctively human like skull, but differently shaped. The bible doesn't account for dinosaurs, which we have the bones of, and other organisms fossils. It didn't just appear overnight for f's sake!! And the chemical make up of the atmosphere and Pangaea with all the continents adjoined. Again, the Pangaea proves speciation, as animals in the same genus moved to different areas of the Pangaea, and when they separated into countries, they adapted to their environments by natural selection. This is why Jackals, Dingoes and Coyotes are so similar but have different features for their climate. Solid proof science is the real deal.

I...I almost don't know where to start. Okay, first of all, for those who need a divine creator because the Big Bang doesn't satisfy: Just because the Big Bang may not be true, why do your thoughts immediately jump to the supernatural? Could it not maybe be possible that there is another, scientific explanation that we don't have yet? I mean come on, you don't know something, so the only possible answer just has to be a godhead? Secondly, someone mentioned that creatures are so complex that they had to be created by God. This person has obviously no idea what evoloution is. Creatures are complex BECAUSE of evoloution, that's the whole point of evoloution. Creatures evolve in complex ways in order to adapt to their environment, and this process took millions upon millions of years. It's not like a monkey just gave birth to a fully formed human. Do some research for God's sake (metaphor!). Also, if God is all-powerful, why did he create the world in seven days? Why didn't he do it one day? Why didn't he do it all instantaneously? What was God doing before he created the world? Why does he allow the horrors of our world to occur? I guess to quote Woody Allen: "If there is a god, I don't think he's evil. I think the worst you can say about him is basically that he's an underachiever."

God created man. I do not know how. Some people think evolution was the tool he used but who knows what scientists will discover next year?

I believe in both. God started it and evolution will continue it.

by God.

God created all things perfectly. They didn't have to "evolve" to higher life forms because they weren't happy with how they were created. God created everything how he wanted it.

Evolution for sure. At least there are concrete facts and proof for that. Unlike for the god theory. People like to say there are facts when it comes to god, but no one has even come close to actually producing real proof. Every time I get into this conversation all I get are bible verses and the "you have to have (faith)" line. The bible was written by man and today it is contorted by man. All faith is, is an idea backed by 0 proof. Its something Christians use when their followers have doubts since they have no real way of providing anyone with solace. No picture of this god, nor anything close to hard proof, other than a book. There is no scientific fact that there is a creator. Yet, there is scientific fact that evolution is occurring. (Preparing for the down rate) PS. I think its interesting how people just assume that god created man. Is it because that's what everyone says so it must be true, or dose it go deeper than that? Ill never understand it.

I rule at asking questions!

God created.

Creation doesn't answer any questions. If your child always answered "because" to every question you wouldn't be happy or satisfied with that answer. Why do people who believe in creation seem so happy with that explanation? It is because they have total faith and belief that they are right. KInd of like the moslem martyrs who blow themselves up have that kind of faith that goes beyond reason. Evolution answers such questions as why humans don't have the perfect eyes that they could have if the blood supply to the retina would have been behind the retina instead of over the front of it. (some species of animals have the blood supply behind the retina) If god made us, he did not do a perfect job. In fact he must have copied much of our anatomy and chemistry from all the other creatures. That variation in anatomy and chemistry is explained by evolutionary theory. So I support the theory that we evolved. I don't believe in evolutionary theory, it is not a belief system. I understand the theory as the best explanation for how we came to be. And I understand that it is a useful tool for making predictions and scientfic advance. Creation would be something you would have to believe in. IT is not a theory and has no use to make predictions or scientific advances.

Evolution -- it's the only hypothesis proposed to date that is supported by the evidence.

Ok, you don't need proof. Why do you demand it of the proponents of evolution. Play fair! Your comment on amoebas again illustrates the depth of knowledge you have of evolution. To answer your question, we evolved from some single cell organism into what we are today. Its been fun bantering with you. Pointless, but somewhat entertaining and illustrative on the creation mind set. You probably agree but from 180 degree perspective. Stay well. I'm moving to abortion debate next! I'm pro choice even though I have personally delivered over a 1000 babies and and resusitated several (no deaths, I know I was lucky not to get any severe disasters).

It's really not a matter of whether you "believe in" evolution or not -- it's really more about whether you UNDERSTAND it...

God create man and after he let evolution to take care of everything.I believe in god and also in evolution.

There's evidence to suggest evolution. Whereas there is none whatsoever to prove hat God did, in fact there is evidence disproving this theory. For example, the gene for mitochondria is passed down from your mother, there are four different genes, which means humans come from at least four different lines. Not one woman.

It is established that evolution happens, has happened and will continue to happen. Mountains upon mountains of evidence backs it up. If you wish to make it a choice between god and evolution, evolution wins and god didn't do nuffin'. If, however, you are prepared to accept the fact of evolution and ponder how a god of your choice may have set things up that way, then there's no reason for this false dichotomy.

God created man. Apparently current evidence points to evolution being one of his tools but some people still dispute that. The chromatic scale is only a few centuries old. The idea of the speed of light being constant is less than a century old and most people still can't get their head around it. Don't expect to be able to prove anything about creation for a while yet. Look at the theories, accept the evidence. In the mean time, God isn't waiting for us to prove that we know what He is thinking. I can't argue with what scientists have detected and dug out of the ground. But I also can't argue with the 'amazing coincidences' that surround some religious people.

Touchy subject for many, but the first few answers I read here I must concur. What is really the difference between God, Evolution, Big Bang Theory, all these ideas can peacefully coexist in the same philosophy / theology. the word "God", to me, seems to express some higher plane of existance (than the crude physical one we so often drop our brains into) and its unifying 'energy'. It ("God") is beyond consciousness and unconsciousness, beyond creating and destroying. These are physical and temporal concepts, requiring minds and words and thought and understanding in order for them to exist. We're comparing apples and potatoes, so to speak. Both apples and potatoes can be eaten, even at the same meal or in the same bite, although they are different in so very many ways. God is beyond conceptual thought, but certain concepts that we've decided to call "God" or whatever, can exist together with a natural Evolutionary system or a scientific system of random chemical phenomena floating around in space, forming suns and planets of which we just happen to be one. Certain concepts of God (especially the Nameless One) are perfectly comfortable with the fact that physics and chemistry rule the molecular universe.

God creating man out of dust.

Parable of the Little Soul http://jenptrsn.freeshell.net/healinglight.html

i personally have a different theory, if u look at religion and evolution togetehr it make more sense that humans were not on earth since teh begging., we were not here when dinosaurs roamed teh earth but appeared after the iceage began?why?because a meteore hit earth and started it. to me it makes more sens that that strike was not a meteore but as childish as it sounds the human race spaces ship. the reason i say this is because now that pyramids on mars have been discovered as well as numerouse alian accounts and astrological refernces of egypot it would make sens. also both the pyramids on mars and earth all point to 3 spefic stars in the sky called the 3 kings, which in the bible are the same 3 kings that came to mee t jesus in this world, these 3 stars point to the star of david which was used to lacate him. thus even tho what i might said is confusing and does not fully makes sense i cant go into much detail about it, but all thing in the world intewine with each other , religion history, astrology, and thus this make most sense to me apart from being created or suddenly poppiong up after the dinosaur age.

There is no theory of evolution that states that humans came from monkeys. It states that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor and are related. Microevolution has been observed and proven, so obviously I believe in it. I don't really buy into any form of Creationism.

One does not preclude the other. Pope John Paul II acknowledged evolution as fact. That being said, I am a firm believer in evolution, but divided on whether life was sparked by a creator or abiogenesis.

God. Evolution is mathematically impossible, and physically so improbable as to be impossible too. It's much easier for me to believe in a ten-dimensional being who could create us than to believe in something which contradicts both Mathematics and Physics directly, using Biology as an excuse, but without explanation.

I believe in a creator, a higher power, if you will, that created all of existence out of nothingness. I also believe in the Big Bang theory, and evolution. It's terribly apparent that we evolve and adapt. There's no way to dispute that that makes any sense.

Totally i higher power makes more sense. And i was watching discovry the other day and they are starting to say all dinosaurs come from birds?!

The universe began the moment that I was conceived in my mother's womb. If I didn't make the earth, and you didn't make the earth, then who?

Yes.

&quot;Laplace went in state to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, who had heard that the book contained no mention of God. Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." (I did not need to make such an assumption). Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, "Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses" (Ah! that is a beautiful assumption; it explains many things). Laplace then declared: "Cette hypothèse, Sire, explique en effet tout, mais ne permet de prédire rien. En tant que savant, je me dois de vous fournir des travaux permettant des prédictions" ("This hypothesis, Sire, does explain everything, but does not permit to predict anything. As a scholar, I must provide you with works permitting predictions." - quoted by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen). Laplace thus defined science as a predicting tool." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace My conclusion: you can believe what you want, but if you want to explain the world, the "God hypothesis" is not of any help.

The HQ supports evolution of the universe. The formation from gas (or 'dookhaan' as the HQ calls it) followed God's command, so yes in that sense God made the earth, is the answer to your second question. Your third and fourth questions are linked, and according to Islam it is not either or, it's both. The HQ says that the heavens and earth were one (kaanata rutqan) 'fa ftaqnaahooma' and we split them apart - a reference to the Big Bang (HQ 21:30). The HQ goes on to say that God created Adam out of clay. Also explore http://www.harunyahya.com/

I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. Comprehensively, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study. There, after satisfying the natural laws of nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all differentiation among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act of its Opposition to Man and God!! A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER TO MY Q: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. DAD’S RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The claims by geneticists that we all spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background. It has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Similar DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order for it to efficiently exist and satisfactorily survive. Snakes and Man share DNA similarities, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, they are precise Opposites – even among those survival features that are necessarily similar. VESTIGIAL APPARATI {the snake – some – have miniscule Internal pelvises, though, in typical opposition, a man’s [a woman’s in particular] is more outwardly obvious. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigial in nature}: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause that snakes present as opposite Man: re the Vestigial structures you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner, however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is.

THE DUST THEORY!! TRY THIS: I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. Comprehensively, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study. There, after satisfying the natural laws of nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all differentiation among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act of its Opposition to Man and God!! A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER TO MY Q: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. DAD’S RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The claims by geneticists that we all spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background. It has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Similar DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order for it to efficiently exist and satisfactorily survive. Snakes and Man share DNA similarities, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, they are precise Opposites – even among those survival features that are necessarily similar. VESTIGIAL APPARATI {the snake – some – have miniscule Internal pelvises, though, in typical opposition, a man’s [a woman’s in particular] is more outwardly obvious. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigial in nature}: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause that snakes present as opposite Man: re the Vestigial structures you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner, however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is.

Well, I don't believe in the Creation theory. I believe that Humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor, but we didn't evolve FROM monkeys, no one claims that.

Yes.

God creating man out of pure dust

big bang here. I can create a figure of a man out of dust and water. But where did the dust come from I wonder.

EVOLUTION?? I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … especially so, when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. This acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His name: “The Master”. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana – at 80% sameness. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to simply satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man’s (woman’s in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the “Vestigial structures” you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE!

EVOLUTION?? I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … especially so, when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. This acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His name: “The Master”. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana – at 80% sameness. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to simply satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man’s (woman’s in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the “Vestigial structures” you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE!

There is nothing in Bing Bang or evolution that says god didn't do it. There is also not one shadow of a ghost of evidence that there is (was) a god who did have a hand in it. There is plenty of evidence showing how it all could have happened without a god. And lastly - there are some religious sects that force their followers to deny all objective evidence. The best rational conclusion is that there is no god. Natural processes, complex and fascinating and beautiful though they may be, are sufficient to explain the existance of this universe and us in it.

well one searches for the answer though logical thinking and the other is just an answer were mere hearsay from two thousand years is involved. also the answer isnt even that great because it opens more questions like how did he come about and why did he bother and so on. surely its better to look for the answers than to create an answer which just makes more questions.

i'd rather believe that God created the earth because evolution, big bang etc., when traced back from the beginning will end up to how are these possible. though it mention dusts, heavenly bodies etc., it's still questionable to where they come from. so you see? everything is possible in God's will.

Why not both? Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact. One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good. Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony. The Clergy Letter Project an open letter endorsing the Theory of Evolution signed by over 10,000 clergy from many different Christian denominations: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm By the way, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Éduard Lemaître (1894–1966), a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and professor of physics and astronomer, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre With love in Christ.

evolution because it's based on sciantific proof,theres no proof for the existance of god.

EVOLUTION?? I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … especially so, when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. This acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His name: “The Master”. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana – at 80% sameness. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to simply satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man’s (woman’s in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the “Vestigial structures” you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE!

Why can't it be both...??

Sorry ... I meant: "Yeah! Don't mind if I do!!" - Deni

God created Man from the dust of the earth, for my discovery so proves it. Se Below: EVOLUTION?? I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … especially so, when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. This acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His name: “The Master”. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana – at 80% sameness. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to simply satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man’s (woman’s in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the “Vestigial structures” you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE!

I lean more toward evolution, but I do not rule out the concept of a more spiritual energy that connects people.

This is for PutBoy: EVOLUTION?? I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … especially so, when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. This acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His name: “The Master”. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana – at 80% sameness. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to simply satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man’s (woman’s in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the “Vestigial structures” you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE!

God created the 'world' using a set of tools, or 'laws'. Evolution is one of them. God said 'Let there be light' and BANG! there was light. And heat. And matter. What's so hard about that? NOWHERE does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old. That was a guess by a Catholic bishop. Why diehard Protestants would take the word of a catholic is beyond me!

Big bang was thought of by scientists who had some evidence to go on. the only (proof) of a god is a book written by people who believed the earth was flat. More believable...i choose big bang. not saying its true or i think that is what happened, just more believable.

Evolutionists often believe they know more than they actually do. Most of it is unproven theory. Creationists often fail to notice that no details of creation are given, only a broad outline. And that a day need not be a 24-hour period, but can be any period, long or short, that can be identified by people living or events taking place then. (e.g. In My day we ...) What we actually know of the two events simply don't overlap enough to conflict.