Quote:

Religion and science CANNOT run parallel. Evolution is based on materialism, the belief that nothing exists except energy and matter.



You've got something very wrong here. Evolution is a biological theory and materialism is a philosophical school. They are completely different things and in no way "based on" each other.

Quote:

I assume you're referring to the similarity between animals. You say, "Common ancesters." I say, "Common creator." Prove me wrong.

You need evidence, not assumptions.



You mean evidence like the giant hands we see from time to time place new species on earth?

Seriously, as we seem not to find a conclusion - you still firmly believe in the impossibility of progressive mutations despite the proof that they are very well mathematically possible - how about explaining your alternative theory? We can not "prove you wrong" unless you give us something like a theory. You can't "prove wrong" belief and religion.

So, how does this God creation theory work? How are species created and then placed on earth? As it's estimated that 100 million species lived on earth, this God - if it's only one - had a lot to do, all work and no play, especially in the cambrium.

Quote:

Animals aren't imperfect. They're actually very well ordered and well adapted to environments that don't treat them too harshly. There is no instance of an animal that is truly imperfect since natural selection takes care of these imperfections.



Well, there is one very obvious imperfection: illnesses and aging. They are required for speeding up the change of generations and powering evolution, however I'd be interested to learn for what purpose a God should design species with random built-in decay.

Most imperfections result from the fact that evolution can't produce any arbitrary feature. There are visible and obvious differences between evolved and designed objects. The reason is that every feature needs to evolve step by step - it can't come into existence in a perfect and finished form. Therefore we have no animals on wheels - although this would be a major advantage in some environments - nor fishes with a prop - although a prop is more effective than fins. Often evolution produces very different results than design would.

As many species - including humans - are not yet evolved to perfection, we're finding vestigial organs like the human appendix. Some vestigial organs aquired new purposes that they obviously weren't designed for, some not. An example for the latter is the appendix that is not "useful for the immune system" as a creationist myth goes. It does indeed produce anti-bodies as it's covered with lymphoid tissue - but the whole colon is covered with it, so you won't need the appendix at all. On the contrary, due to it's shape - a blind ended tube - it's bound to be blocked, which causes bacteria within to be trapped and multiply, with the well known life threatening results. That's the reason why it's a lot better for health to have it removed.

Another examples are rudimentary snake legs that disappear shortly after birth on most snake species, resulting from their evolution from reptiles. Some flightless bird species - like the new zealand Kiwi - still have rudimentary wing stubs. Humans have a useless tailbone (coccyx) and an atropied muscle (plantaris) for flexing toes - a muscle that does not work in humans at all, but worked well for our ancestors and still in monkeys.

For what purpose would a God go to great lengths to design species in a way as if they were evolved?

Is it possible that your God does not want you to believe in creationism?