Can God make mistakes? How many 'likes' will it take for him to back down?

[413x]

Yeah saying you believe is one thing

Saying you logically came to dismiss evolution and believe in the Bible is another

Often God etc is a fear of death being the end I find
It bypasses the stages of grieving, denial and acceptance

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I find the alternative to be completely inconceivable. Plus I've never seen any compelling evidence for evolution.

You could turn the question on its head and apply everything you've asked to why you believe in evolution? Did you start believing in evolution before you were introduced to the theory at school or by your peers/parents? Unlikely.

How do you explain that?

It doesn't disprove that life was created but you cant refute facts that are right in front of your face.

Which means no matter what we believe we've been influenced by others who held those beliefs before we did.

The difference between SCIENCE and FAITH is that Science works on facts, is peer reviewed by very smart people just itching to disprove theories.

Faith is based on stories, myths, hearsay and chinese whispers, you have no proof of God in any way.

 

[FoxEye]

Mart, I'm not sure what that diagram is about, sorry. It is a timeline or something else? Looks pretty complicated. I don't honestly know what I'm looking at.

One of the biggest problems we have is getting living matter, capable of reproduction, from non-living matter. We still can't create a living cell in a lab, can we? Under perfect conditions where every variable can be controlled.

A quick Google shows we've created artificial DNA and injected that into a living cell, and this is about as far as we've come to date. Impressive, no doubt, but not addressing the pretty fundamental problem in getting life from non-life.

Someone whose knowledge is beyond "a quick Google" can correct me if we've actually created living cells from scratch.

Ultimately I'm not going to be able to justify my belief in God to people who want a scientific proof. I'm sorry, we all know this to be the case. God is not scientifically provable.

I simply have more doubts about evolution than I have about creation. So there it is.

 

[dowie]

I simply have more doubts about evolution than I have about creation. So there it is.

But you seem to be under the impression evolution attempts to explain the creation of life? Whats with the whole artificially creating a cell argument - its rather irrelevant. If you believe in a divine creator then evolution doesn't necessarily conflict with that.

 

[FoxEye]

But you seem to be under the impression evolution attempts to explain the creation of life? Whats with the whole artificially creating a cell argument - its rather irrelevant. If you believe in a divine creator then evolution doesn't necessarily conflict with that.

If we're being honest, those who advocate evolution normally reject the concept of a creator. They tend to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Nitefly]

As above, Evolution explains biological diversity. It does not explain the creation of life.

 

[inogen]

Do monkeys go to heaven?

 

[RDM]

If we're being honest, those who advocate evolution normally reject the concept of a creator. They tend to be mutually exclusive.

Excluding the Catholic and Anglican church obviously...

 

[inogen]

How about if you could convince a monkey to believe in God. Would he go to heaven then?

What about the Neanderthals? Did they go to heaven?

 

[Destination]

Excluding the Catholic and Anglican church obviously...

Indeed, those 2 billion followers worldwide
Seems a reasonably big number of God botherers who believe in science and evolution as part of God's plan.

 

[FoxEye]

Excluding the Catholic and Anglican church obviously...

I can't speak for them. It must be interesting choosing to believe that certain parts of the Bible are myth (the Bible claims God created man directly).

They must be in a particularly difficult place. Why believe any of the Bible if you have convinced yourself that some of it is a fairy tale?

 

[Destination]

If God started the big bang, then he created man...
(directly)
and who are you to judge your God, when all you do is recount the written word of Jews, words that were not written until many generation after they were first told.

As I ask the biblical zealots, which version of the bible do you particularly believe in?
If it is the word rather than the message you believe, what version is your particular brand?

The Lord Jesus Christ taught in parables, virtually all his teachings were done in this way, do you think God itself would not have considered similar for the Old Testament, rather than transacting it as pure fact with no interpretation?

 

[Nitefly]

I can't speak for them. It must be interesting choosing to believe that certain parts of the Bible are myth (the Bible claims God created man directly).

They must be in a particularly difficult place. Why believe any of the Bible if you have convinced yourself that some of it is a fairy tale?

In the words of Rufus (the 13th apostle), that's why it's better to have ideas than beliefs. Ideas and can be wrong and that's OK. But people die for their beliefs.

 

[FoxEye]

If God started the big bang, then he created man...
(directly)
and who are you to judge your God, when all you do is recount the written word of Jews, words that were not written until many generation after they were first told.

As I ask the biblical zealots, which version of the bible do you particularly believe in?
If it is the word rather than the message you believe, what version is your particular brand?

The Lord Jesus Christ taught in parables, virtually all his teachings were done in this way, do you think God itself would not have considered similar for the Old Testament, rather than transacting it as pure fact with no interpretation?

How can evolution be direct creation? If man were created through random mutation then man wasn't created directly, at all. It would also imply that random mutation isn't random at all.

After all, the Bible says God created man in his image. How did he do this if mutation is random? Man could have ended up looking like ET if it's truly random

I think trying to shoe-horn evolution into Biblical creation account is much more problematic than choosing either to believe the Bible creation account, or disbelieve it.

 

[tbyeah]

If we're being honest, those who advocate evolution normally reject the concept of a creator. They tend to be mutually exclusive.

Completely wrong, vast majority of religious people accept evolution.

What doubts do you have about evolution? You are talking about abiogenesis (origin of life). Evolution doesn't concern this.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Mart, I'm not sure what that diagram is about, sorry. It is a timeline or something else? Looks pretty complicated. I don't honestly know what I'm looking at.

I simply have more doubts about evolution than I have about creation. So there it is.

It's a timeline showing where, when and how types of creatures came to be and who their ancestors were.

How can you have doubts about evolution, the facts are right in front of you. I don't mean to be rude but if you are uneducated on the matter you can't just plead ignorance and say you believe more about God than you do proven scientific fact.

I already posted this in another thread. I have two examples.

1) There are some frogs, magically created by god or magically created by circumstance it doesn't matter. These frogs are dark green and one day a frog spawns and another frog fertilises them, genes mutate and one or some of the frogs grow up and have fluorescent colouring.

The natural predators of these frogs are snakes, lizards and birds. These predators have never seen a frog with fluorescent colouring so are put off from eating them. The fluorescent frogs thrive and are more likely to mate and their colourings/markings are passed on from generation to generation.

2) Arctic bears didn't magically have white fur all of a sudden, their ancestors probably had dark coloured fur and these bears found it difficult to hunt in the snow as they can be spotted from miles away. Bears mate and one or more of the bears gene mutated and they ended up with a lighter coloured fur.

These bears had more luck hunting as their lighter coloured fur made them harder to spot by prey so are more likely to survive and their light coloured fur gene is dominant and over the thousands and tens of thousands of years the light coloured fur gene helps a new species of bear to thrive, the polar bear.

I don't mean to be condescending and my explanation is probably the worst explanation in the world but that is evolution by natural selection, creatures that develop traits, markings, behaviours that help them thrive split off a new branch from the main branch of their common ancestors.

It doesn't disprove creation but the facts and results are out there to see.

 

[Destination]

How can evolution be direct creation? If man were created through random mutation then man wasn't created directly, at all. It would also imply that random mutation isn't random at all.

After all, the Bible says God created man in his image. How did he do this if mutation is random? Man could have ended up looking like ET if it's truly random

I think trying to shoe-horn evolution into Biblical creation account is much more problematic than choosing either to believe the Bible creation account, or disbelieve it.

So answer the question.
What version?
Specifically what is your version of the bible.

 

[FoxEye]

It doesn't disprove creation but the facts and results are out there to see.

The different-coloured frog is still a frog. The different-coloured bear is still a bear. I don't see this as definitive evidence that frogs evolved into bears.

The gene pools of all kinds of animals can be shrunk/grown to produce desired characteristics. But a Labradoodle is still a dog, and a Savannah is still a cat.

A black/white/azn/african man is still a man. Do we talk about such differences in humans as evolution?

P.S. You're entirely right - I'm not educated, and I'm not a biologist, so I'm not an authority in anything. Nor am I trying to preach, or convert, or convince. I'm happy to be proved wrong about anything, believe me.

 

[tbyeah]

The different-coloured frog is still a frog. The different-coloured bear is still a bear. I don't see this as definitive evidence that frogs evolved into bears.

The gene pools of all kinds of animals can be shrunk/grown to produce desired characteristics. But a Labradoodle is still a dog, and a Savannah is still a cat.

A black/white/azn/african man is still a man. Do we talk about such differences in humans as evolution?

P.S. You're entirely right - I'm not educated, and I'm not a biologist, so I'm not an authority in anything. Nor am I trying to preach, or convert, or convince. I'm happy to be proved wrong about anything, believe me.

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

Just an example, how man evolved fairly in-depth.

 

[Ryan-3]

If God created the universe then who created god? God doesn't make sense.

The hundreds of Gods from all religions also share one common trait. They're all fictional.