In the end, there is no definitive evidence that will disprove either parties (either atheists or christians) as if there was, the arguments for atheism or christianity (which ever was PROVEN to be wrong) would collapse. If you wish to believe the universe created itself, by random possibilities and that life somehow began, then so be it. Science can explain lots of things, but many things cannot or have not been answered and are merely based on limitations of the human mind. On the other hand, christianity does not provide any solid 'proof' either.
However I choose to have faith in God for this very reason, if things cannot be proved through science, then there is no evidence to disprove God exists.
The collective morality of man is like a puddle - it finds the lowest level and then becomes a stagnant cesspool.
All this intelligence and scientific enlightenment has not elevated mankind in thousands of years. It's a heart condition.
Symbiotic theory seems to be the closest thing to reality IMO(going back to single celled organisms). For any who may be unaware:
A lot of people will say that they love milk, but not many will admit that they are "in love" with milk.
Tell me do you think both Einstein, Newton, Boyle Faraday etc etc. were all ignorant fools, lacking intelligence and rationality when it came their personal beliefs about a Creator, but were intellectual giants when it came to science?! Is that rational? I don't quite see the point of brining up DNA as a method of disproving God. It's like saying because we've discovered that all of creation can be reduced down a single sub-atomic particle, there mustn't a Creator. If someone who's never seen a car finds one and through a structured and logical process begins to decipher how it works does that mean it wasn't created by someone else who was more technologically advanced? Just because you begin to understand the mechanics of the something doesn't disprove that it was created.
A-Minds HYPE-SLAYER! All posts & feedback are guaranteed to be unsolicited and legit
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom & instruction" Proverbs 1:7
Anabolicminds.com Featured Author
Did I ever say that I 100% think we're not created?Nope because I would never say it because it's not provable.It would not be logical.Just how the belief in a single God,whats more the Christian God is the one true God is not logical.
None of you creationists have answered my question about how your religious beliefs is just a matter of geography.But oh no of course that one true God would have come to you some way or another right.
If we understand the mechanics we're getting closer to the answer.If it ends up being God I'll believe but don't try and belittle the guys in labcoats who are trying to look for an answer instead of blindly saying this is what we should believe because we can't answer the question and apologise for being human every Sunday.Anyone who does that has a screw loose.
Well for one the part of my post where you and others ignored. That is the innacuracy of fossil records. Some quotes
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of Life, What geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record" - Evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup.
The vast majority of fossils show stability among types or creatures over extensive periods of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type to another. What is this so called "missing link" that connects us with other primates? We HAVE NOT found it so you can't say where we truly came from.
Since fossil records have shown creatures have appeared suddenly then it would support the theory of creation.
The "cambrian explosion" throws a big wrench in the theory of evolution because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly and do not "evolve" over a long period of time.
In a National Geographic article in 2004 they likened fossil records to " a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor".
So what your theory is doing is taking fractions of information and making up a story. That's pseudoscience at it's best.
"Nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes" - The science journal Nature "A new species of great ape from the late miocene epoch in ethiopia. 2007
What happend with the the fossil in 2009 "IDA"? Proposed to be a missing link in the human evolution. It's buzz died.
"Ida is not a missing link in human evolution" -UK science journal "New Scientist", May 30, 2009 pp-18-19
What about the images that depict how we evolved from the ape/chimp/monkey?
"The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively contructed or tested. Attempts to do so based on modern apes " are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate and invalid". "Any facial reconstructions of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading"- Science and Justice vol. 43 no. 4 (2003) section, Forensic anthropology, "Anthropological Facial Reconstruction"- recognizing the fallacies, unembreacing the errors and realizing mthod limits- C.N. Stephan P. 195
There's a good question to ask yourself. If evolution says species evolved by extremely slight modifications over time then where is the evidence? The evidence is opposite. Mutations cannot transform a original species into a new one. Both in the animal and plant world.
Then there's darwins Natural selection and the study of 13 species of finches on the Galapagos islands.
A study was done in the 1970's by Peter R and B. Rosemary Grant of princeton UV. They found out that as the climatic conditions changed certain type of finches were dominant. In a drought finches with larger beaks become dominant while otherwise "normal" climate conditions showed the domination of smaller beaked finches. This showed the ability of a species to adapt. Inventually interbreeding of the 2 species would produce one specie over time, not a entirely new one. Adaptions happen to humans as well. Skin pigment is just one example. Here's a good link on how the human body has adapted to climate changes.
In the end the finch was still a finch and humans are still humans. We have no evidence that we are evolving into something entirely new.
This is only proof of adaption, not evolution.
Microevolution is more plausible and has more evidence then macroevolution. Microevolution in many senses is adaption.
“Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life"- John 6:68
WHAT has science offered?
I think (and I could be wrong) a lot of it has to do with God creating the world basically and then evolution being what takes place. Most Christians want to put God into everything and call him an active designer of all that goes on. Yet it doesn't have to be that way. Why can't God have created the world and the natural laws and evolution be shaping the differences throughout the ages?
Like I said I could be off, but I know many argue about them coexisting. A whole lot of people don't think it has to be one or the other.
EvoMuse Products Rep
PM me with any questions!
Remember the theory of universal gravity is also "just a theory" and has "huge gaping holes" in it.
Quinon Proficit Deficit
"Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson