Life on earth was most likely started billions upon billions of years ago, by a mixing of certain chemicals. Then they started to evolve.
Then via evolution, and a lot of time and different climates and conditions we have different bacteria, which continue to grow, perhaps even compete.

this is where i see a major disconnect.  Logically, I can't say that your conclusion is incorrect - because well - no one really knows (thus, the mystery of life, hehehe) but i will say that it seems like a stretch to suggest the combination of any type of physical matter could result in creation of consciousness.

The evidence I was referring to was not that God exists or does not, that's another debate, but that evolution happened and is happening.

In your statement above - you mention that the existence of God is a different debate.  However, your thread was started by asking for "Creationists" - I would think that would imply that you're looking to engage in discussion (debate) with people that believe in God.  Further, when you state that life was started by chemicals - i believe that implies a lack of a God - so naturally, someone who does believe in God might feel compelled to reply to such a statement.

quite simply, if they didn't evolve they would die out in plenty of cases.

Yes, this is understood and I mentioned that exact same thing myself.  That still doesn’t account for my question – if we’re just random bits of matter that happened to accumulate, live – then die – why even care about dying?  The bottom line is I don’t have the answer nor do you – so my statement are not with intent to challenge – because there’s nothing to challenge.  Two people arguing about “why all beings have instinct to live” is akin to two blind people arguing over what the color “blue” looks like – it’s pointless and a bit exhausting. 

If you want to “pretend” like you have answers that no one on this earth possibly could have – that’s allright by me, we live in a free country.  However, I’m ok to just put stuff out there as good food for fodder, and let people think about things in their own time and way.

If they do evolve then it is because a mutation has occurred and it has been beneficial.

We’re just rehashing the same thing over and over now.  I’m not questioning evolution per’se, I’m offering that, it’s my belief … that there is an intelligence behind evolution.

There is nothing to suggest that there is an underlying consciousness trying to manipulate evolution

In my opinion – there definitely is something – that “something” being … consciousness itself.

Even if it were, where does this underlying idea that they much have a sense of self come from?

Humans – have a sense of self, no?

I believe,  as far as we believe to understand at this time, only humans and monkeys have a sense of self.  Of course, “what dictates a sense of self?” – that’s an age old question in and of itself. 

Let’s, for arguments sake refer to “snakes”.  Let’s, for argument’s sake again say and accept “snakes have no sense of self”.  Then why would the snake feel the need to mate, and propagate it’s species?  Why not just bum around, chill out, have a bud, watch some tv, eat some rats (sorry – snakes aren’t known for being the best vegans) and then well, (poor little guys) – die!  Why that inner need or drive to propagate?  I’m not asking “you” per’se – I know you don’t have the answer.  I know I don’t have the answer.  I’m just making a point that this is a factor that leads to my belief/faith in ID.

who is to say that they would? Just because we evolved a certain way does not mean those monkeys will, maybe they'll have more tails, no opposable thumbs so on so forth

Good point!

Wasn't it survival of the fittest, I'm under the impression that the first land dwellers were amphibians. Being able to escape to land would give a huge advantage to them over prey and predator patrolling coasts.

Here is the differentiation that I see:

First Example - you have a series of already existing, different but similar species, and one of those species is most suited to live in the environment that surrounds it – that species will be more likely to continue as a species.  To me that’s “survival of the fittest”.

Second Example – You have a species that currently lives in a very humid and warm environment.  For whatever reason – that same species then migrates and permanently settles in a very cold weather environment.  The species is not well suited to survive in this new environment.  To survive, as a species – somehow … some of the members of those species start to mutate – maybe they grow thicker skin, maybe a furry coat - this is a mutation that had to have happened for the species to continue to propagate.  Once this chain starts – then it continues further along, where the creatures that have not adapted begin to die off but the creatures that have adapted continue to reproduce – you then get “survival of the fittest”.  However, the chain, the mutation … it started somehow.  How did that initial series of mutations ever come about to begin with?  This is where I believe there needs to be in innate underlying intelligence for the mutation to ever occur.

Now, playing devil’s advocate – maybe there is no ID. Maybe those mutations were totally random in nature.  Maybe it was just a freak stroke of luck for that species, that one of it’s members in however many generations - mutated a trait that helped the species to continue.  To me, this is way too much randomness and is more absurd (again, to me) then belief in a governing force – but hey, I don’t know the answer – anything is possible.

If you're going to doubt this then I ask by what means do you draw to say God exists?

I think this question has been answered already – “faith” does not need “science” (that’s kinda the very definition of “faith” – having a belief in something that cannot necessarily be proven).  It’s ok if the answer doesn’t strike resonance with you but, the fact remains that the question has already been answered.

What do you believe with regards to how we got here? And I sincerely hope it's not "God did it lulz!"

Wow!  You ask a question but then you’re pretty much offering ridicule for an answer before even giving the person a chance to answer? Why even ask the question then?  Why are “YOU” asking this question?  Is it your intent to prove someone wrong to validate your “science”?

What is wrong with “God did it?”.  Let’s say all of the science you espouse is perfectly accurate, without a shred of any doubt – all the way back to – what we think we know of the beginning of the universe.  How did the universe begin?  I don’t mean “the big bang” – I mean, how did the Big Bang happen? Do you know? No.  Yeah, that’s ok, I don’t know either.  No one knows.  So people have every right to believe that God created “creation” as you do “not to believe it” – no thinking is more right or wrong then the other. 

The only thing I see as “wrong” is someone trying to “lead the witness” when the person asking the question cannot themselves possibly claim to know the answer for the very same question which they posed.

Even if we did say God exists as a creator I see no reason to give him authority over me, just as I don't give authority over my life to my parents (with the exception of financial authority which I have  currently no choice over).
I will ask for forgiveness if there was a God, as I'd like god to say sorry to me, I'd like God to apologise for making me and presuming I wanted to be made, and for making me a sinner.

For me, if there is a creator – then this creator probably has the power to take away as much as they do to create (whether or not choosing to use that power).  To me, eh – that’s authority enough.

Authority is not given – it’s taken.  If you commit a crime and the police take you to jail – you are not giving the police the authority to take you to jail – they are taking that authority.  “Surrender” is given, “authority” is not.

You always have “choices” over everything.  They may not be enviable choices or logical or desireable choices – but there’s always choices.

Your last statement, to me that sounds akin to “I’ll make the police apologize to me for taking away my freedom and not letting me do whatever the heck I want” – it’s not always up to us (probably – rarely is).

Genetic mutations happen for lots of reasons--errors in the DNA replication process that we can pinpoint.  Incorrect base pairing, etc.  Sometimes the "desired" mutation doesn't happen at all--that's when extinction occurs.  I guess I don't see where you're going with this.  You're saying that some outside force dictates RNA/DNA transcription errors?  There are lots and lots and LOTS of mutations which are detrimental and even fatal for a species.  What of those?

Of course there are going to be lots of mutations/evolutions whathaveyou – that are detrimental to the species.  ID or not - there’s going to be many evolutions that simply didn’t span out – and the section of the species then became extinct – sucks to be them, I suppose.  But somewhere, one section of the species maybe evolves in just the right manner to continue to propagate their line.  Isn’t that the case w/humans.  Humans being homo-sapiens but there was some other “homo-….” species that was similar but wasn’t able to propagate.  Then it comes to that “survival of the fittest”.  All of that being said, that doesn’t account for why species evolve to begin with.

The reasoning you present is backwards--we see the successful species that we do BECAUSE their mutations are amenable to the environment.  We don't see the ones whose mutations aren't amenable to the environment because they can't propagate.  Both types of mutations happen--good and bad.

What you described above – ends in survival of the fittest, right? Evolution occurs, some lines of a species make it – while other’s don’t.  My question goes to “why” does the species evolve at all – instead of just reproducing and then dying off.  My feeling is that there in innate sense of “species must propagate thus species must attempt to change to survive in current conditions”.  To me, that seems like some deep rooted inner wiring – who did the wiring to make beings even feel the need to evolve.  

I understand what you're trying to say (at least i think i do) - that you don't think there *is a why*.  Whereas, i do.  Again, it's not something i'm posing with the hopes that someone answers - as you said in an earlier post to AoaS - to which i agree, we don't understand everything there is to understand about evolution - so all we're doing is the exchange of concepts - we don't actually ... know

And I still think we all need to be on the same page about what evolution is--you all are describing some things that are not evolution at all, which makes it confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Sirdidymus, that first quote in your previous post isn't my words!