Originally posted by Qbuilderz

Not to be disrespectful or anything, but strictly being blunt instead, yes. The former is entirely more believable than the idea of a omnipotent being, capable of almighty power known by no other.

The whole universe created in seven days vs. millions of years (which go unaccounted for in the Bible) of constant growth and change -- I think one is far, far more believable.


EDIT: This is NOT to say that evolution is the be-all-end-all, of course. That being clarified, there are still no data to prove evolution is wrong otherwise. If the trend continues, it will most likely be accepted as fact in another hundred or so years. Until that point in time, plenty can still go wrong and point in a different, potentially Godly, direction.

Originally posted by Sarab

Yes it is. The main reason being the proof of the existence of such intermediate creatures. There are countless creatures throughout the fossil record that represent this transition. There are actual fossils of animals that capture this slow "trippy" morphing you speak of.

Maybe, the evolution of tetrapods is something that might shed some light on the process.

Or maybe you believe the fossils are completely unrelated and probably doctored by evolutionists to dupe everybody?

Originally posted by J03Y

there are actually religious enthusiast (and many Christian scientists) that believe the world was only created in seven days from God's perspective. but outside of God's time the universe and the Earth could've taken years or eons to develop. God is omnipotent, time isn't a linear or relative construct for him. to him creating everything probably did take seven days, I mean it's not totally clear he had to create night and day in the first place.

also, thank you for adding that last bit, at least we're on a similar page on that front.



you still didn't disprove God, though? you just proved that there are transitions (still trippy, animals used to look so different billions of years ago) and there are fossil records that could prove evolution. but it still doesn't disprove the God started the process.

Originally posted by J03Y

there are actually religious enthusiast (and many Christian scientists) that believe the world was only created in seven days from God's perspective. but outside of God's time the universe and the Earth could've taken years or eons to develop. God is omnipotent, time isn't a linear or relative construct for him. to him creating everything probably did take seven days, I mean it's not totally clear he had to create night and day in the first place.

also, thank you for adding that last bit, at least we're on a similar page on that front.



you still didn't disprove God, though? you just proved that there are transitions (still trippy, animals used to look so different billions of years ago) and there are fossil records that could prove evolution. but it still doesn't disprove the God started the process.

Originally posted by Ferst

Originally posted by BLaCKPoWeR

People see and hear God all the time.

They do this by walking in faith and developing a relationship with him. God is not obligated to prove himself to humans and earn our trust; we prove ourselves to him by giving him our trust.
---
Yes.

Originally posted by Ferrer

I was just about to say this. This is what I believe. 2 Peter 3:8 tells us that God doesn't measure time in the same way that we do. To think so would be ridiculous, as he is superior to us in every single way.

Originally posted by Callum

nnn yeah, that's what's ridiculous about God.

Originally posted by Sarab

My point wasn't to disprove God. When did I ever say that disproving god was my intention? I think God is one of those things you can never disprove or prove.

I was just replying to your statement that evolution was "trippy stuff science came up with"

Evolution or in a broader sense Science, doesn't really serve to disprove the existence of God. It's just the attempt to understand natural phenomena.

Ultimately we reach a point in modern scientific thought where things can't be explained further. For example, where the energy in the beginning of the universe came from.

While you could cite this as a reason to believe in God, I'd just rather focus on trying to further knowledge than to label the unknown as God.

Originally posted by seanoh

Yes, I do believe in a higher power and I don't care how many ugly atheists say that their isn't one. It makes me feel better and more comfortable, and it puts a lot of sense into things that wouldn't make sense without a God (at least to me anyways).

Originally posted by Callum

nnn yeah, that's what's ridiculous about God.

Originally posted by J03Y

sorry, it gets very negative in threads like these. I apologize for thinking you came off as confrontational on the issue, and you're right what I said was distasteful. the comment was just much for me I guess. I do agree with you, though, science serves to explain the world around us and it's just immature that some people will use scientific findings as a way of disproving God when that's not nearly possible.

Originally posted by Sarab

I think the problem starts when people let their views create a bias.

To me, Science and religion shouldn't go together. It's one of those situations that's bound to lead to confrontation.

People's beliefs are their beliefs and everyone's entitled to them. Science should be about the pursuit of knowledge rather than the conscious debasing of someone's faith. And in the same vein, religion shouldn't be used as a medium to distort the truth.

Originally posted by DAP

Non-religious.