What is your best counter evidence for evolution? Evolution is a scientific fact. Just like gravity. We can see that it happens [Spirituality & Religion]

@SW-User the origin of life and evolution are separate things and in separate theories. The very first origin of life is essentially a question of chemistry. But God used to be needed to explain the whole of nature now almost none of it - the very origin of life is still a mystery so it stands to reason chemists will solve this problem too eventually.

@Benarro nope :v
What I am saying is, God creating this universe doesn't mean evolution cannot happen after creation

And chemists really cannot be such a reliance with all the odds against it 😂
They got more faith than I do for sure!!!

@SW-User

I wouldn't be so sure. They're already figuring out how inorganic molecules can form organic ones. Under lab conditions the miller urey experiment shows that creation is not necessary in order to produce amino acids, the precursor to proteins.

@Pikachu We all know inorganic molecules can form from organic ones :p
That's a given

Creation has more to do that with just the arrangement of matter in this world :p
It's not about the start of life, but more so the objective examination of all the systems around us and the possibility of a Designer, Creator, and Sustainer. I think I read into that experiment a long time ago .-.
His lab conditions were not like that of the early Earth. He had a system that was different

@SW-User

But you have to admit that if the possibility has already been discovered that life could arise and replicate itself without the need for a creator...then there might not be a need to postulate a creator at all.

My understanding of the miller urey experiment was that yes, it probably does not perfectly replicate the actual conditions of a primordial earth but that it was proof of concept. That is, given favourable and naturally occurring conditions, the building blocks of life can form without the necessity of a creator to manifest them.

@Pikachu I don't necessarily agree >_>

Honestly, this world running with or without a Creator is not in our right or control to argue for or against. We may consider God just a postulation but that does not change reality no matter how right we think we are. This also goes the other way. Proof is firstly a human thing and we can't prove anything from our creation or true origins of existence. Second, a Creator is something that is feasible and possible; there is no denying it. People can try to make God obselete, but that is not within reason. If you shut God out, then what's the point of this discussion at all? We will live in a world forever separate from the foundation up. This talk about evolution and abiogenesis does not relate to the Creation of this universe. We got no proof or reasoning or probable support for that. Just another postulation for one WITHOUT God .-.

This of this ._.
What is CREATION? Does that include only the chemical world we see before us? I think not

@SW-User


Well we can argue and debate for any point whether it is our right or not lol.

[quote]but that does not change reality no matter how right we think we are[/quote]

Agreed. But that says nothing about what is actually reality.

[quote] Second, a Creator is something that is feasible and possible; there is no denying it[/quote]

God is certainly possible, but that does't mean that a god is [i]necessary[/i].
Given that we have known mechanisms for how life achieved its current complexity and hypothesized mechanisms for how life began it IS within reason to suggest that a god is not necessary to explain it.

Essentially your argument is coming down to the god of the gaps:

"sure, we can see that w, x and y might have naturalistic explanations which do not require the intervention of a supernatural being, but what about [i]Z[/i] ?!"


But this is all just speculation, isn't it.

You can't show that a god is necessary. I can't show that a god is not responsible.

[quote]If you shut God out, then what's the point of this discussion at all?[/quote]

So let's bring it back to the subject of this thread which is evolution and the evidences against it.
My understanding is that you don't feel there is evidence against evolution.
So we are in agreement.

@Pikachu I don't think evolution can be rejected. However, I just believe that it does not deal with the creation of this universe ._.
Creationism does not mean the earth was made 6,000 years ago. I'm talking the big bang type



[quote]You can't show that a god is necessary. I can't show that a god is not responsible.[/quote]
[quote]"sure, we can see that w, x and y might have naturalistic explanations which do not require the intervention of a supernatural being, but what about Z ?!"

But this is all just speculation, isn't it.[/quote]
What I am saying is that God may not be a speculation. If you reject the origins of the texts of the Abrahamic religions, then you would live in a world where God does not need to exist .-.
However, where one is open to the origins of the Abrahamic religions being truly the Creator, then this discussion would make more sense ,_,

Honestly, some of us believe, some of us don't. Those of us that don't believe see no reason for God to exist. Those of us that do so no reason against God. It's an endless cycle of opposition but I'm not diving into that. I am looking to just explain that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive XD
You talk like evolution means God cannot exist