but doesn't this same science also prove that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Where did the first "monkey" or whatever evolution believes, come from? Matter cannot be created, so how does science explain that?
Alright... my turn. We are arguing two things here. Which really happened? We evolved over billions of years or God created us 20k years ago just the way we are. I used to be a rather religious person but since then have come to question religion in general. Why do people believe in something they can neither see, hear, or feel? Reason #1: People were programmed to follow. People want to be led. Having a God allows people to just follow his rules and do what they are told. Reason #2: Order and Morality. A world of anarchy is not a world one would like to live in. A brawn beats brain world would be filled with crime and people doing whatever they please. Religion was a way to keep people from doing horrific things. They would be taught from a young age to "do good and you will be rewarded" and "do evil and you will be eternally damned". Reason #3: Explain things that could not be explained. Why did the sun rise and set? Why are their seasons? The primitive people did not know why these things occurred so they gave credit to God. Some religions even considered these things Gods. We now know that the sun is not a God but a star. and numerous other reasons... For the sake of argument, lets pretend that all of these religions believed in one God. This God built the "world in 7 days" (something along those lines). He created everything. He went into this world with so much detail, planted dinosaur bones miles deep into the earth and created atoms>>electrons>>quarks that all function differently. This is one thing that made me start to question Gods role. Why would God go into so much detail? What is the point of that? The Bible (is it capitalized?) has been proven wrong on more than one occasion. Why would God create false theory's? On a scale of believability of 1 to 10, thats a 1. Then theres evolution for which we have proof. How was the world created? The universe collapsed and exploded with such force that planets, stars and moon were created (E=MC^2). In fact, the blast was so powerful that it continues today. The universe is continuously expanding and there is still energy waves being emitted (evident by the static of TV's). Next, the world. When the world first existed, it was a ball of fire that cooled over millions of years. Atoms, under such harsh conditions began to form together and mutate, forming micro organisms which continually evolved over billions of years, adapting to their environment with each generation. These were proven with two things: an experiment conducted by scientist where they set up very extreme conditions in a lab and were able to create life from non living things. The other is the Darwin's theory of Natural selection. This was proven in both the case of finch birds on the canary isles and the moths changing colors from white to gray due to pollution in England. More things that prove evolution: carbon dating, layers of rock, tectonic plates, etc. Even the Pope acknowledges evolution. What science cannot explain is our reason of existence (if there is one at that). Yet can God explain that to us? He hasn't and I bet he never will. My take is there there is a higher power (God) but I haven't figured out what he is there for. We should not lives our lives to please God nor should be give him all of the credit. When miracles happen that cannot be explained by man, perhaps is it the work of God or perhaps it is chance. Overall, there is more proof of evolution than of God.
beat me to it. Matter can also be converted to energy and vice versa. So it is never destroyed/created, just changed.
There is a preponderance of scientific evidence to support creation as the correct explanation for our existence. The misconception that evolution is science while creation is religion is propagated by a variety of "myths" surrounding the evidence for evolution. Myth: Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago. Reality: This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the "cosmic egg"? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity? Myth: The fossil record proves evolution. Reality: There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other. Myth: Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry. Reality: The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer. Myth: The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary progression. Reality: The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life is complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events. Myth: Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable. Reality: Although radiometric dating methods seem to show a trend of great age, these methods depend upon numerous other assumptions. When used to date events of known age, such as lava flow in Hawaii or the Grand Canyon, they have been wrong by orders of magnitude. How can we be sure they are accurate for events of unknown age? Furthermore, the vast majority of dating method indicate a very young earth. Myth: The human body contains many "vestigial organs" , leftovers from our evolutionary development. Reality: Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics. Myth: The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear. Reality: All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.
Most of your points seem to focus around the fossil record not showing one animal turning in to another so i will address this. We don't need fossil records to show that. We only have to look at the skeletons of pythons and dolphins. Both still contain a remenence of rear legs. Then you could look at retrovirus DNA found in humans and chimps, Then when you have read and understood that have a look in to chimpanzee chromosome 13. The evidence is there if you can find the intellectual honesty to look for it and admit to finding it. But all of your points somehow see evidence of god in sciences inability to currently explain everything. Why don't you actually try to find some evidence for what you believe to be true instead of regurgitating decades old creationist propaganda in an attempt to refute someone elses hypothesis of what happened. Even if evolution is proven wrong, the big bang is proven wrong and the old earth theory is proven wrong that still does not and never will prove your god to exist. You are falling foul of the false dichotomy fallacy. you are saying if evolution is untrue, god done it. if the earth isn't billions of years old, god done it and if the big bang didn't occur, god done it. The religious argument never attempts to try to prove them correct, it only ever tries to prove others wrong. But im afraid that proving one theory wrong will never prove another theory to be true. So i suggest you people start looking harder for evidence to support what you believe. If the scientific community were to use the same logic as you do they would just say, No evidence of god, case closed (which is probably what they should do) but they don't. they allow you to engage them in conversation with the home of eventually drilling some education in to you. You should thank them for that.
I believe in evolution. But I am not rejecting the possibility of a god. I just do not believe in any of the concepts of the gods given by the existing religions. May be I will find another definition some where down in my life and if I think that sounds reasonable, I may agree to that god/religion. I do not believe in any religions as they are preaching right now.
You sound like a deist SuviCyriacNadakuzhackal. belief in a non-intervening non-personal god. it's better than this other lot who thinks the "creator of the universe" is their bestest buddy who looks out for them and does them favours.
All believers do not believe in a god. Some believe in one god. Some believe in multiple gods. Some believe in no god.
As rebuttal to your "who laid the cosmic egg", who created God? Did he just exist? How did he come about?
This is a true statement that has been stated many times in several threads. Yet, stOx likes to put all believers in the same bag. That tarring brush must be real heavy by now....LOL
I liked your statement above: "People were programmed." The word programmed implies someone created the program. So you're contradicting yourself when you say "people were programmed" and yet you believe in evolution
It only implies that to people who a) don't understand evolution and b) have an agenda where a "programmer" would be convinient. Evolution can program a species brain. Evolution would program people to follow because we are social animals. Not everyone can lead, So we would have the desire to follow, and the one with least desire to follow will more than liekly lead.
You're right I don't understand evolution. How can you go from a frog to a human being??? This reminds me of that fairytale where the pretty girl kissed a frog and then it turned into a prince. Not something I would believe in, or not something I would "understand".
You should probably stop expressing an opinion on it then. here is how it works. if scientists say it's true and you don't understand it, they are right and you have to stop talking. welcome to 2007.
So God is not a person, place, or thing, yet God is a noun. That leaves God to be an idea. Yet it is more likely and believable that POOF everything exists. Do you understand how a tadpole becomes a frog? It looks NOTHING like its final shape, yet it changes into it. Evolution is basically the same thing, except over millions of years and adaptation to the environment. Thats pretty ignorant. There are many drugs out there that scientist say are completely safe, yet 10 years later cause cancer (it happened to a weight loss pill). You should always do your own research and study both sides of the argument.