Does your belief about how the universe came to be combine God and macro evolution?
I think there are some terminology issues with this question, but I believe in the Big Bang, evolution, and, ultimately, that my God is responsible for my universe coming into existence.
Yes I know :( I apologize
No need to apologies for my views nor anything else ;-)
Dammit Hadley! this is why we can't have nice things.
I tend to give more weight to the entire sum of human scientific knowledge at the cutting edge of present time than to what people thought in the Iron Age. This holds true for most things, not even just religious myths.
As an agnostic… I have no idea :P
I have no reason to believe in the existence of a creator, much less any specific creator.
Macro-evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, nor does it have anything to do with the origin of life. It has everything to do with how the diversity of life came to be, and the very principle of chance and randomness on which
it relies is inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient God with a divine will and plan.
Yeah I know. I don't know how to ask what I wanted to ask :(
or maybe it's not random chance, but intelligent design...
I forgot to tell everyone that I'm God. Oops!
That's more believable than Christianity.
I think there is a higher being, but I think physics, science, math, etc... Have more to do with it.
I think physics has more to do with the universe than biology.
Well yeah.. What I'm trying to ask is if you believe God started everything, but he didn't create us as we are now, like young earth creationists believe.
I probably did a poor job writing the question though lol
I get ya.
Cool.. I wish I could close it and figure out how to say exactly what I mean. Too late now though. *sigh* lol
No. God alone. Macrevolution is a myth. Microevolution, however, does exist, and has been responsible for the differentiation of dog breeds, etc.
The only reason you don't accept macroevolution is because it is inconsistent with your Bible. Don't use scientific reasoning to accept micro and personal belief to reject macro and expect us to think you are logical.
Tom, I agree with you.
Droo, there is evidence all around us for microevolution. There is not one shred of real evidence for macroevolution. You cannot produce one single transitional form. Nor will you ever be able to. The only reason some of you folks accept
macroevolution is religious also - it is the categorical rejection of the possibility that God would directly create all that exists. Now tell me that I have not been logical in this post.
You have not been logical in this post.
Tom, Christian apologists employ the best logic and reason backed up by facts and history, and all secularists can say is that they disagree.
Yeah, genetics, DNA, Physiology, and fossils aren't shreds of evidence! but god, that shit's proven science!
Dues, creation testifies of it's Creator.
No, it doesn't. It show's that said "creation" exists. It states nothing about a creator, especially when there is a natural alternative with evidence to support it.
The evidence backs that the universe and life could ONLY have come from the Creator.
Not really, that's a rather narrow world view most things have a natural explanation.
And as for the universe goes, many cosmologists agree that the universe didn't need a creator.
Dues, two things: first, the right amount of matter/antimatter had to be so extremely perfect at the creation of the universe that had the amounts been off by even a tiny bit the universe wouldn't have been. Second, when you apply the math, an entire
universe fill of organic soup wouldn't have been enough to start life. Multiply those two impossibly small "chances" together & the possibility of both our universe and life starting on its own is completely impossible even with a trillion big bangs.
For your first assertion, there's only one way for the universe to exist for us to be able to observe it, which is to have an equal amount of matter to anti matter. If we didn't have that balance then you and I wouldn't observe it. So what you're
attributing to god is simply inevitable, it's the only way to observe it.
For your second assertion, it is impossible to put a percentage of chance on the likeliness that life is some rare gift and that it "couldn't possibly of started without a god" because we haven't explored the universe at all. So we don't know how
likely or unlikely life is.
Dues, the leading secular scientists now freely admit they have no plausible idea how life could have started. Leading physicists and mathematicians now recognize the odds of the universe and life accidentally coming into existence is virtually zero.
To argue against the existence of the Creator God you have to argue against physics, math and biology.
You do realize that there are multiple theories of a abiogenesis attempting to explain how life first started right? So to say that they have no idea is a complete lie. Also I can site many leading cosmologists that disagree with you. What's your
Also you might want to tell this to 49% of scientists and 92% of the world class scientists at the national academy of science who are atheist or agnostics.
to nitpick, isn't cosmology the horoscope stuff?
What? no! cosmology is the study of the origin of the universe, it's an advanced section of astrophysics.
You're thinking of astrology Lol.
Dues, no one has a remotely provable theory of how life began. Some scientists are now making the argument that since life could not have begun on earth, aliens must have brought it here. Others argue, a totally different, much easier to form life
must have started on another world, and that life evolved sentience and then it created DNA and brought that to earth. Talk about grasping at straws.
Dues, you can admit that you do not know God, that's just being honest, but to argue God does not exist you must abandon all reason and logic.
Show me a link to a peer reviewed scientist that believes this, because what you're saying sounds like panspermia being spewed by someone who doesn't understand the theory. Also we have observed amino acids and primitive cell walls arise naturally in
labs which are the building blocks for primitive RNA, so what you stated was utter rubbish.
You're literally using straw man logical fallacies all over the place, site credible peer reviewed scientists saying the things that you've been attributing to them or admit that you're lying.
The complexity of a living cell is beyond the scope of chance creation. The math simply does not support life created by happenstance.
Deus, no scientist can even remotely prove an origin of life theory outside of the Creator God.
You keep making untrue statements. No one will argue that current cells were what arose, they evolved like anything else that undergoes natural selection.
This is like talking to a wall, I told you that they have and provided specific incidences where they have.
"Evolution isn't backed by facts"
*States point and expects rebuttal*
"Evolution isn't backed by facts*
rinse and repeat
ACTUALLY REFUTE HIS POINTS. PROVE HE IS STUPID DONT JUST SAY HE IS STUPID THAT MEANS NOTHING.
Also are we god? because we created life a few years ago, well we didn't Dr. Craig Venter did.
Drooski, this is not an argument about evolution, but rather the origin of the universe and of life and if those things could be possible by chance or if they require a creator to exist. I believe Deus sincerely wants the truth, as do I. No one is
trying to prove the other is stupid, so please butt out if you don't have anything productive to add.
Deus, that Venter story is fascinating. BTW, Ventor said he did not create life:
Also, obviously what Venter did was far from random chance.
He didn't create it from scratch to be precise. But that's neither here nor there. My points prior still stand.
Meh there shouldn't be a space in macroevolution. Oh well
At t=0 there were no laws of physics, remember.
No, and I see both as saying the same thing, at the beginning. Genesis says God was always there without bothering to address where God came from, and science says we have no idea. Potayto, potahto.
that was surprisingly fair to religion.
One but not the other.
God but not macroevolution, though I know many aren't Christians and those who are often believe this
Nope…I'm closer to becoming an atheist every single day.
as in you're not now?
I identify as an agnostic right now.
I hate to be the one to say this, but that's worse than unbelief, according to the bible
Umm…ok. I'm not really concerned about what's "worse" - I only care about facts and evidence.
Agnosticism is worse than unbelief to God? So what.. You get a worse version of hell if you die as an agnostic?
God thinks "I don't know if there is a God" is worse than "I don't believe there is a God"?
I don't understand that.
Haley, I don't pretend to know and don't care to find out
reference is revelation 3:16
God thinks refusing to acknowledge either side and sitting on the fence is worse than openly rejecting him.
2 yards: God's house on one side of fence, devil's on the other. devil owns the fence