Taking Questions on the Creation Week

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What day did god create cicadas?

 

[Incariol]

What day were viruses created?

 

[antde2001]

It's not the place for the Theory of Evolution to explain the origin of life, as the theory explains the diversity of life from common descent.

The origin of life can be reasonably explained away as a chemical reaction that is no more miraculous than a baking soda volcano science project, actually. Do we have evidence for it? Not exactly -- that's why abiogenesis is still hypothesis.

The reason why our explanation happens to be a naturalistic one is because any explanation for anything we know thus far about the universe has naturalistic explanations behind them. There's no rational reason to assume the supernatural is responsible for anything or even exists at all, for that matter.

But see, rather than making the assumption that we know it for fact, we continue to study it until we know more about it, and then keep studying it still. Unlike creationism, which is takes an anti-knowledge stance by saying "God did it, that settles it, there's nothing to learn here."

I believe this post is by-far the most on point and precise accounting for the process of evolution, yet it seems that in this thread it was almost ignored. I absolutely agree that evolution doesn't outline the process which spawned the first replicators. DNA, though the most basic form of life today, is actually an advanced form of the first replicators. To postulate their first arrival and what process produced them goes beyond evolution and focuses more on biology and chemistry. However it would be a mistake for any being to adopt a doctrine of filling the voids with superstition and abandoning research and experimentation. Admitting we don't know or fully understand something is quite fulfilling and helps drive further study into an issue.

I don't question anyone's intelligence as I believe many of you here are quite educated. I just believe that many of the creationists on this forum are taking the wrong approach by completely denouncing science and the pursuit of knowledge only to insist on quoting a document which has been translated, copied, rinse and repeat by unknown persons, anonymous authors and translators from generation to generation without a system of verification or certification. Yet theist constantly base their knowledge on what is said in the bible and qualify their certainty with quotes of scripture. It would be considered a faux pas to base a Ph.D thesis soley on research obtained from wikipedia or a google search due to the likely inaccuracies and lack of credibility of the contributors. No one can verify the contributors to the bible over the ages. Why don't we attribute the same standards we utilize every day for all documentation? Sounds quite biased.