How does creation answer this? It's the scientific consensus that modern birds evolved directly from theropod dinosaurs. [Spirituality & Religion]

@awhitedot The thing is, in a near infinite universe it HAD to happen somewhere, and it's inevitable that wherever it did happen, the sentient race of that planet would eventually figure out what HAD happened...

Chance kinda breaks down when you have an infinity of time and space to work with.

@awhitedot Actually it's the other way around. The odds that some omnipotent and omniscient being "created" every detail of the universe down to the last Higgs boson are outrageous.

@awhitedot

How would you calculate the statistics though?
And the statistics would only become staggering if you assume to begin with that our existence was the end point.

Why should you be surprised to find that you exist in a world where it is possible for you to exist?

@Pikachu @HungJury @Quizzical So first you asking me to ignore the fact that there is no know source for the initial matter that had to exist in order for the Big Bang to take place and are also asking for me to accept that somehow order came from disorder, which has never been scientifically proven to ever had occurred in any other instance. Yeah, hard for me to swallow.

@awhitedot Easier to swallow than a magic beard in the sky did it surely?

Especially when we have gathered evidence for evolution and scientific creation, and we have NONE for the existence of god.

And all of the matter of the universe may very well have come from a previous universe collapsing into itself triggering a Big Bang, and this could have been going on for eternity.

@awhitedot

If you accept the un-caused cause of a god, on what grounds do you deny the un-caused cause of the big bang?

As for order not being able to come from disorder, y'all ever seen an ice crystal form?

HEre, this quora post isn't bad

https://www.quora.com/We-know-you-cant-create-order-from-disorder-How-do-proponents-of-evolution-claim-that-all-the-complexities-of-earth-happened-due-to-a-chaotic-event-called-the-Big-Bang

lol woops forgot the link

@Pikachu Agreed.

Science will always be at a disadvantage than religion in answering these ultimate qustions as it is encumbered by proof. Faith has no such restrictions.

When something is deemed implausible in science, the theory is either ammeded pending new evidence or discarded in favor of a more supportable hypothesis.

When the same problem is applied to faith, the believers just make shit up to fit the presupposition.

@awhitedot [quote]I find it easier to believe in creation than in everything that had to happen perfectly for us to exist happening just by chance. If you calculate the statistics it’s staggering.[/quote]
So how did the creator happen "just by chance"? Why couldn't life, the universe and everything have happened the same way?

@awhitedot This is somewhat of a strawman right off the bat. This is an evolution question, not a "why does the universe exist anyway?" sort of thing.

But to that point, "just by chance" isn't some sort of scientific position on the topic anyway, the closer actual scientific answer is "we don't know, and are still figuring to what extent we can know". Which is perfectly fine, that's just where we are on that.

About the concept of evolution though, we're pretty damn certain.

@QuixoticSoul

Unfortunately no one has yet attempted to actually address the question of this thread😢

@Pikachu [quote]Unfortunately no one has yet attempted to actually address the question of this thread[/quote]

Sure we did. They may not be the answers that you're expecting them to be.

@GodSpeed63

lol yeah, i was expecting you to actually answer the question i asked and not take broad pot shots at evolution.

If you could respond to the substance of this question, you would have.
You're not prepared to discuss this subject.

Come back when you are.😁

@Pikachu [quote]i was expecting you to actually answer the question I asked and not take broad pot shots at evolution.[/quote]

Put your glasses on, friend. My shots at evolution hit the bull's eye every time.

@GodSpeed63

[quote] My shots at evolution hit the bull's eye every time.[/quote]

Haaahahahaha!😆😂😭

Aw buddy....

"It's not a scientific consensus"

Would that be an example of you hitting the bulls eye? A flat out, objectively, [i]verifiably[/i] (if you actually bothered to look) wrong statement?

Thanks for the laugh kid. But seriously. Even if you [i]were[/i] able to make legitimate criticisms of evolution, you're still plainly afraid to answer hard questions.

And you're going to prove it right now when you refuse again via transparent deflection and excuse to answer the question i asked in this thread.

Maybe you just missed it. Here:

"Why did god make two different "kinds" of animal with such startlingly similar anatomy when some of them don't even use that anatomy?"

Your move.

@GodSpeed63 Your projectiles don't even leave the barrel lmao.

@awhitedot Amen to that!

@QuixoticSoul Put your glasses on, my friend and see for yourself.

@awhitedot So true. The fact is that evolutionists are completely ignorant about what all the processes needed to keep even most simple life forms alive. Incredibly complex processes just happen by accident.

@GodSpeed63 Nothing to see.

@hippyjoe1955 You're clueless, Joe.

@hippyjoe1955

The fact is that your argument from incredulity is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
Even at BEST it does nothing to prove that a god exists and certainly not the particular god you imagine is real.

What's more, your application of this logical fallacy does not excuse you from responding meaningfully to questions like the one raised in this thread.

An excuse is an excuse, joe. Not an argument, not a discussion and not a rebuttal.

Until you find yourself capable of answering a straight question with rational discussion, why should any of us take you seriously?

@awhitedot There it is, again, the false dichotomy, setting the debate in the wrong axis.
The opposite of (only) chance is NOT "purpose" as design and agency.
It is, instead, the intrinsic properties of the material world as things in itselves.
So to persist as for change. So as discrete entities as related tho other ones.
Scientific laws are only the intellectual correlate of intrinsic physical laws.
They first ones are only aproximate, incomplete and subject to update.
And still the best description of the material universe we have as a species.
The last ones, intrinsic physical laws, don´t deppend on any subjectivity.
They´ve worked fine for thousands million years previous to any concivable mind.

Probability (a priori), statistics (a posteriori) are human tools. The ones that may or not convince us.
But things could care less on what we believe to be like they are.

Again, the "if it´s not by chance it means design" is, at best, naive ignorance.
I would not give the benefit of naivety to those arguments that focus on subordinate Science as a way to subordinate people´s freedom to think, choose and do.