Atheists, if God used science instead of miracles, then would you believe in Him? [Spirituality & Religion]
22-25, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Lichocolati · 31-35, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Lichocolati · 31-35, F
@SW-User question still not answered *looks at nails*
Lichocolati · 31-35, F
@hartfire Then where do they believe we came from if they neither believe science created humans nor the existence of God
@Lichocolati Atheists believe humans and all life evolved from the basic building blocks of proteins and RNA.
These complex molecules developed by the trillions in the sea because the right conditions existed: temperature and quadrillions of atoms which, by their valencies were attracted to bond with each other.
The proteins and RNA molecules clumped into primitive organisms. This process is still occurring in the sea and we have living examples of them now. They are actually more chemically complex than higher evolved cells, because one organism has to be capable of all the functions normally fulfilled by specialised organs.
Gradually cells with organelles evolved, including a nucleus in which the RNA evolved into DNA, and these could multiply by cell division. From this, the genetic origins of all life forms developed.
But the physics which makes biochemistry and biomechanics an automatic process was not the only influence. As life became more complex, competition, cooperation, symbiosis, and catastrophic events in the planet's geographic formation also played their roles.
Science [i]did not create life[/i] and has never made such a claim.
But through discoveries in multiple disciplines which confirm each other, it has strong evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Despite looking and cross checking, since Darwin's Theory of Evolution in 1859, the theory has developed, modified and become far more sophisticated. But so far, despite all the testing and experiments, all results tend to confirm the theory, and none has yet contradicted or disproved it.
The evidence is overwhelming on many levels.
These complex molecules developed by the trillions in the sea because the right conditions existed: temperature and quadrillions of atoms which, by their valencies were attracted to bond with each other.
The proteins and RNA molecules clumped into primitive organisms. This process is still occurring in the sea and we have living examples of them now. They are actually more chemically complex than higher evolved cells, because one organism has to be capable of all the functions normally fulfilled by specialised organs.
Gradually cells with organelles evolved, including a nucleus in which the RNA evolved into DNA, and these could multiply by cell division. From this, the genetic origins of all life forms developed.
But the physics which makes biochemistry and biomechanics an automatic process was not the only influence. As life became more complex, competition, cooperation, symbiosis, and catastrophic events in the planet's geographic formation also played their roles.
Science [i]did not create life[/i] and has never made such a claim.
But through discoveries in multiple disciplines which confirm each other, it has strong evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Despite looking and cross checking, since Darwin's Theory of Evolution in 1859, the theory has developed, modified and become far more sophisticated. But so far, despite all the testing and experiments, all results tend to confirm the theory, and none has yet contradicted or disproved it.
The evidence is overwhelming on many levels.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment