I don't believe in God, per se, but I do believe there is a higher existence. Because I believe the laws are made. And as time goes by and more universal laws are discovered or deducted, a more complete picture of the world around us would be known. But I do not believe in a God which take the shape of human and am omnipotent and omnibenevolent. It's just a myth.
Evolution takes hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years! You cant deny it because you dont see an advanced, more evolved man walking around. And besides, with all of the advances in science, there is no reason to evolve, science keeps the weaker humans alive, so there is no "survival of the fittest". I am sorry, the Bible is not a History book and never will be. It is a collection of stories that help us understand our life on Earth. I will believe science as long as it keeps chugging out that little thing that makes stuff believable...evidence.
Also, science and the believe of a higher being can co-exist. To put things short, humans are still too shallow in realising and understanding the world of science, little universal laws are "found", without the bridge of universal laws that facilitate the understanding of the world, we can only choose to believe Science OR God (that is, a higher being, not THE PERSON GOD), not both. I believe in time we will learn enough to have the two compatible with each other. Heck, I think the two are one and the same, only we need to put it into symbols and equations to translate "Higher being" into what we know as "science"
Well...dispite what people think, there's no evidence to PROVE evolution from one species to another. There's evidence to support adaptation to environmental circumstances, but that can't prove that one species evolves into a different species. However, the existence of a higher being can't be proved as well. Yet I believe in God. For one thing, natural selection can't explain the concept of irreducible complexity. In the bacterial flagellum, there are over 40 proteins that work together to make the flagellum work. Without any 1 of these proteins, the flagellum will not turn. So...according to Darwin's theory of natural selection, the organism would evolve through time, developing these proteins one by one until the end result, the flagellum was produced. Yet why would evolution select FOR these proteins? It's not in any way beneficial to the organism unless they're all there. That's my two cents, I guess.
Irreducible complexity is not a scientific principle. You could say the same for an ecosystem, a computer, a table, a camera, whatever. Besides, there's already a scientific answer for that. It's called life as an emergent property of chemical reactions and matter. And macroevolution has plenty of evidence. Obviously there's no proof. But there's clear, obvious evidence... you cannot say the same for any religion. Here are the main branches of evidence for macroevolution, as I see them: 1. Microevolution: This process is a proven fact and can be seen time and time again in changing strains of bacteria, as well as insects that become resistant to pesticides. 2. The Fossil Record: Is it not obvious? There are no dinosaurs in the Bible. In fact, the Bible said the Earth didn't even exist millions of years ago. Then why are we finding dinosaur fossils? Some people like to say that God is doing this to test us. So your God is a deceptive deity, is he? 3. Natural and Unnatural Selection: Going along with microevolution, the process of natural selection is proven and can be observed happening every day. While no known clear-cut speciation can be see taking place, as it requires possibily thousands of years, we may find examples of speciation in progress easily. For example, some domesticated farm animals and pets no longer resemble their wild cousins, and may not even attempt to mate with them. Under the principle of species, this already qualifies them as a different species, as they have no chance to mate. Furthermore, speciation may be seen in breeds of dogs--surely a lab looks nothing like a chihuahua. They are still able to make though, so they are designated as breeds, just as the entire family of dogs is separated from wolves by a designation of subspecies. Obviously, if laws permitted it, new species could be created in the lab fairly simply by genetic manipulation. Some people might say this is playing God, but I think it's playing nature. 4. Molecular and Genetic Basis: When you get down to the genetic level, things become much clearer. You may construct entire phylogenic trees based on genetic makeup alone. From here you may even derive genetic ancestors. 5. Vestigial Organs: Classic human example is the appendix. It does absolutely nothing for us and acts as a liability (appendicitis). Why would God design something like that into us? To make us suffer and possibly die? That's not to mention the tailbone. Why would God give us a tailbone if we don't have a tail? Or is it because our ancestors did...? 6. Extinction: Why does extinction occur? What's the theological point of it? Why did God create imperfect creatures, some of which man had never even been in contact with? While this is a subset of evidence for Natural Selection, it is a theological question for proponents of creationism. Go ahead, try to answer it with Biblical evidence. 7. Primate-Human Ancestry: No, we did not evolve from monkeys. Only uninformed idiots will say that. There is plenty of evidence that supports the evolution of humans from early primates, least of which is the overwhelming amount of fossil evidence of intelligent human ancestors and failed species like the Neanderthal. There's the aforementioned genetic evidence too. And why is it that both humans and apes may contract HIV if they're so different? Well... they're not. Simple as that. Now let's see evidence for Creationism.
And there my friends, is a very plain example of why religion freaks will never be able to support their beliefs.
That's retarded. Why? Because science and God in any current religious form cannot coexist. Religion preaches creation. Right... so what about all the fossil evidence? The earth being millions of years old? The Bible says it's 10,000 years old. Who's telling the truth? Why would God use scientific evidence to make it seem like it was millions of years old? Why would he put dinosaur bones when there were never dinosaurs? If you believe that science and religion coexist, are you going God a deceitful deity and a liar? Well, no need to ask that, because you are.
It's hard to say if god exist or not because we don't really know how god came to be. When and how did we first conceive of god? How did we know of god existence? I think if you believe in god then you should prove his existence to the world. Find evidences of his doing. I'm just sick and tired of people saying how god did all these things but when you ask them how they'll start saying something like "it does what it does".
Science and God are separate and are not mutually exclusive. Additionally there are more factors in this universe than just science and god. Science is knowledge that puts the apparent chaos into repeatable results. Whereas God is a spirtual concept that is as far as we know it is a human thought so far. Our scientific knowledge is extremely limited. Although of course according to the Islamic faith, the camel has a name for God. No one has successfully comminicated with another animal on this planet to debate the spiritual concept of God. Many eminent scientists follow the religious faith. They are certainly not incompatible.
