So you seem to think evolution is wrong.  Forgive me for even bothering to question...but, uh...how?

~Zoo

 

Gosh, come on Zoo, don't you know it's all about the monkeys!! Says in a part Jerry Falwell, part Pat Robertson voice, "God did not make man in the form of monkeys!" (He mad them in the form of complete oddities...) ( Couldn't resist.)

But seriously, if we're "made in the image of God," then damn. God must of some similar (puzzling) issues as we do.

Evolution is a theory and a model system for a lot of scientific research. It is also an opinion, because it has not yet been proven to be a fact. Until evolution becomes a law, it will remain an opinion. The number of people who's personal beliefs align with the
opinion doesn't add credibility to it.

The majority of science is opinion that contains experimental data to back that personal belief. It's very difficult to call something a fact in science.

But you're wrong when you say: "The only people that doubt it with such veracity are people that have absolutely no understanding of it."

Many athiest scientists have a good understanding of evolution and also strongly doubt it- Many of them are still compelled to use an evolutionary model because the only other viable alternative is belief in a Creator.

And we can't have that now can we?

When you say opinion, do you mean: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof? Because...evolution has a lot of knowledge and substance behind it. It's the evidence that leads to the model. Just like gravity and atomic theory. Let's take gravity...it hasn't been "proven" per se, but we're pretty sure it exists based on the concept of...well, things falling.

Do you know what the difference between a theory and a law is in science?

A scientific theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A scientific law is: A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

The only difference here is time and acceptance. A law is merely the beefed up version of a theory in science. A scientific law is not a fact. However, it used to help us make predictions about the world...and most often they are completely and utterly correct. If you want to be so picky about facts, then abandon all science and mathematics because they operate primarily on theories and laws. "Facts" are things that are readily observable...they are the evidence which leads to theory and law. The facts are that organisms change over time, the theory for that process is evolution.



We can have that if there's evidence for it...everything we've ever collected has pointed to the evolution of a cell. Chemistry, biology, genetics...all the data collected strongly supports the idea of evolution. Not once has there ever, ever, ever been something that correlates to some "designer." If there was, then we'd be investigating the crap out of it. Science is about finding answers, not appealing to one's own sense of belief. There are rules and procedures we follow to eliminate personal bias in our experiments and our conclusions. We NEED evidence and tests to confirm or refute our suspicions. To submit untestable, unobservable mythology(Christian or otherwise) as science is a fundamental raping of our scientific method.

~Zoo

So wait, you're confirming what I'm saying. Evolution is a raping of the scientific method.  

I said this: "To submit untestable, unobservable mythology(Christian or otherwise) as science is a fundamental raping of our scientific method."

Obviously you lack reading skills and/or understanding of the content.



See, this is exactly why creationists don't get taken seriously. No research, no evidence, nothing...they don't even try. Playing with words is fun and all, but it proves nothing. Stay in philosophy and religion where that actually matters.

~Zoo

That which we know from common sense and reason is the universe consists of matter and matter didn't always exist and won't always exist.

The answer to your question is Almighty God is the First Cause of everything visible and invisible (angels). The universe presupposes a Cause, a being necessarily outside the thing produced. This uncreated Cause this Eternal Being having no cause, no beginning Christians name God.

You don't have to thank me for the comment editing, Lula.

I agree, by the way.

Sense is anything but common.

Like music is composed of sound and silence, so the universe is composed of matter and space. I can find no reason why all the matter in the universe would suddenly pop out of existence, so I'm going to say that "common sense" would suggest it will always be here until forcibly removed with his noodly appendage by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

At any rate, Lula - that's a swing and a miss. The premise is that Thing X cannot exist without a cause. Do I really need to go back and quote what I was responding to again? If nothing can exist without a cause, then God can't either. If God CAN exist without a cause, then so could the universe.

Now if you wanted to suggest that the universe itself is God, that would at least be an interesting philosophical discussion. This current line of thinking? Not so much.

On second thought, I probably do.

Matter cannot come from nothing. God is not matter.

Here's my opinion!!!

We know that God created the universe and all life that's in it by faith, not opinion.

Believing Creation is true by faith is deeply mysterious..at the same time, it's extremely interesting as well as a real adventure to see science (like molecular biology and genetics) little by little affirming our belief.

Dogmatic Evolutionists try to blow off the mystery...remove the Creator and instead make evolutionary theory the only cause.

 

How do you know that for sure?

 

I just quoted what the OP said.  He said "nothing" aka "no thing."

 

If God exists, then God is an object of some sort aka a THING, which makes him a subset of all things to which the words "no thing" or "nothing" applies.  If he is not an object of some sort then he cannot be distinguished in any rational way.  If he can not be distinguished in any rational way, then assigning properties to him is equally irrational.

 

Unfortunately in this scenario, nothing has nothing to work upon and no faculties with which to operate, so we are, therefore, forced to admit an Eternal God.

I believe that God created the universe, time, space and all matter, ex nihilo "out of nothing". God says that's how His Creation began and He must know for He was the only one who was there and God cannot deceive or be deceived.

God did not make the universe out of nothing as carpenters make tables out of wood. God did not make nothing into the universe. The correct sense of "out of nothing" is this: God made the universe but did not make it out of any pre-existing matter. Apart from God Who always was, is and ever will be, before Creation, there was nothing. God willed and there was something..thus Creation began. God does not need anything previous to work upon. He simply wills a thing to be and it is. Just like the water changed into wine at the wedding at Cana. When the time was right, Christ willed it and the wine was there....instantly.

Macro-Evolution is wrong because it's pseudo-scientific speculation purported to school children as fact.