Creationism vs. Evolution

[KingTitan 6]

What do you mean about "HOGGING"?????

[city11 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: city11 MayorTim: GREAT!!..then where did those atoms that formed the molecules come from and where did the formers of those come from....all your atoms and bases and compounds and molecules had to start some where...it didn't just appear...it had to be started by something..and i believe that something is Godquote>

Okay then, where'd god come from? He had to start somewhere too, he couldn't have just appeared.

You see, no matter what, you have the problem of something coming from nothing, a beginning point of sorts. And not even religion has an explanation for that one, they just say it's all part of the "great mystery" or something.

So it's logically flawed since introducing a divine being into things only introduces another step backward... it still can't explain were it all began.quote>

 

Yes...Yes...I see what you mean...I have no anwer to where God came from...but I just want people to understand that we didn't just appear...the things that made us didn't just appear...the things that made the things that made us didn't just appear....but if there was no God, no greater being...how did it all start...who started it?

[Mikeaut1 261]

Okay we need to calm down.

Why can't we discuss this without the finger pointing and the constant sways from the topic?

We're all entitled to our own opinions on how this world was created and how it continues to grow. Since this site caters to all people around the world, we will most definitely have different opinions. I believe in Creationism. I believe that God's presense has been here forever and he created the world in 7 days. But I am not one of those people who believes that the earth is only 10,000 years old. I think the earth was created billions of years ago, minus the big bang. And the dinosaurs lived. We have fossils that can prove that. And I believe God created the earth, and made evolution possible, through animals other than humans. In the Bible, it says that God's special creations were the humans. We were his "prized creation". I think its true that birds used to be dinosaurs and some animals have evolved over time. But not humans from monkeys.

I am not one that generally picks and chooses what I believe in. Some Christians get crap from others saying that they pick and choose what to believe in and that is not sticking to your beliefs overall in Christianity. To be a Christian, and to believe all this stuff, you just have to have the faith. It just hardly comes down to straight scientific facts. The Christians are not scientific people. We base all we believe in by faith. And then others who don't follow Christianity or follow the belief of creationism try to prove otherwise through the use of science.

We'll never have a straight answer. We will believe what we believe in and we'll argue the point over and over until its beaten to a bloody pulp.

[KingTitan 6]

One thing....do we all remember "anything" before we were born???? think about it................................

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy

OK, first off, no I don't honestly believe that my coke could have come to life, but there was a purpose to that illustration.  Amino acids, proteins, fats - you name it - can be found in the stuff I get at Smoothie King or can easily be added.  My point is that non-living objects aren't going to just become a living object.  Someone can take anything organic substance they want, do whatever they want, and I guarantee they'll never get a living object from it.  Living objects only come from previously living objects.  The chemical brew that Stanley Miller did probably wasn't radically different from the overall outcome of something like the fermentation process.quote>

And, where are the facts in this statement?  Probably doesn't cut it in this thread.  You need some facts, my friend, not speculation on what you think happened.  Do some research on this experiment, and you'll find that it is quite revolutionary.quote>

Let me ask you this one thing.  Was anything living substance derived from this?

Now, about the thing about changes in death.  When someone has a heart attack and their heart stops pumping blood and they stop breathing, they can still potentially be revived?  Nothing has changed just yet in their physical make up.  Their cells are still perfectly capable of supporting life, at least for the next minute or two, but if no one does anything, the odds of them just reviving on their own is basically zilch.  They're brain hasn't stopped firing signals yet, so why doesn't it fire the signal to their heart again and restart it?  This is something that involves the mystic spark of life, something that no one can actually explain.  So, again, I'm supposed to believe that something inanimate took on properties no one can explain.  To me, it doesn't seem logical to assume that happened by chance.

quote>

There are scientific explanations for these processes, but it has nothing to do with evolution, and this so called "mystic spark of life".  You can't just write off the unknown as the "God force".quote>

I'm not.  I did say earlier that no one can answer the question about why living things are alive (and I mean in a scientific method, not something along the lines of "God willed it").  And when I say no one can explain that, I do mean no one.

As for the mutations thing, I've been numerously told by people who were all about evolution who repeatedly told me I was wrong to say that mutations were generally a bad thing.  Barbarossa, you cited an example very similar to what I had said about the issue with a miscarriage and said person was adamant that it wasn't a valid example.  I fully agree with what you said - mutations are usually detrimental.  But I've seen way too many people say that I'm wrong to cite examples pertaining to birth defects and such even though they are clearly the result of a mutation of some sorts and basically all of them are something that sucks.quote>

The key word here is usually, which means that you accept the fact that:

A.) Genetic mutations exist.

B.) They can bring forth a positive change.quote>

Yes, I accept and firmly believe that mutations exist.  Yes, I also believe that they can bring forth a positive change.  I accept that the statistical odds are against that happening.  Finally, I also accept the reality that just because it can happen doesn't mean that it will.

[2nerdy4u 1]

I don't want to sound mean or anything, but this is what I saw in Mike's argument and here are my responses.

First: The Bible was written by humans. People... mere people... flawed people... imperfect people... I know scientific stuff is written by people, too, but with science, we can always build upon things, get rid of inaccurate things (like the idea of the sun going around the Earth), and figure stuff out for ourselves using logic and reason.

Second: How can we be a prized creation if the idea of a god was created by humans themselves? As someone stated earlier, Are we in the image of a god or is this god in our image?

Third: You talk about fossils and study and such, but what about early mammal fossils? species that pre-dated humans? We are nothing more than a species of animals. The thing that makes us different is that we are highly intelligent. That's it. Through evolution and circumstance, we are what we are. Monkeys and apes are so similar to us. They are capable of thought and they can learn (perhaps not at our capacity...) just like us. Why are we not descended from apes? Why?

Last: There are many ideas of creation... not just the Christian one. Do you think the Native Americans didn't have their separate ideas? the Greeks? the Hindus? Just because there are people out there who aren't Christian and don't believe in the Christian idea of Creationism, doesn't mean that they are all atheists and Evolutionists.

There I'm done. Go forth and reply, but as Mike said, keep it civil.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Carrying an off-topic tangent just a little farther...in response to cityy11 etc.

By definition, 'God' as an omniscient omnipotent  eternal being cannot 'come from' anywhere. If there were to be a beginning point for a particular entity, that alone would disqualify said entity. 

This is also part of a logical puzzle for the atheist. If you say 'There is no God', then you are claiming omniscience, because you would have to be omniscient to know absolutely if there were or were not another omniscient being. Follow? Saying 'I believe there is no God' however,  presents no logical difficulty. At least not to this particular line of reasoning. Then at that point, ironically, atheism becomes quite literally an issue of faith.

[DragonStallion 0]

personally, everyone on this planet is titled to their own opinions. I'm not saying science and religion are intertwined together, but I can't really expect for big bang and evolution to create order in the universe and here on earth respectively. Its not logical to me but that's just my view

[Ron Swanson 1]

First I would just like to say that Manticorefan is absolutely correct, in a very logical sense.

Secondly, I would concur with Mikeaut1. I believe that in fact the Christian God, of the Bible (or parlty the Torah), not the Koran, created the universe, and everything within. I believe that God has always been and always will be. Not an idea that we as humans created for comfort or whatever other reason. The Bible has forty different authors, spanning fifteen hundred years, and few ever met each other. From cover to cover, these writers claimed that God gave them every word. Psalms 68:11 says, "God gave the word, great was the company of those who published it." The Apostle Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God (God-breathed) ..." (II Timothy 3:16). Peter claimed, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables ... We have a more sure word of prophecy ... For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1:16-21).  That is all I can say for the legitimacy of God. Unless the Bible is an one big lie, and for many, that would be a hard fact to swallow. As for the age of the earth, that one is hard. When it says in the Bible that God created the earth in seven days, it could be taken as the literal calender we use now, or it could be each "day" was some million years. Who knows?

For the fossils that were of earlier mammals, earlier than humans, God did create fowl and sea creatures before humans came into existence. The 5th day to be exact, while wild animals, livestock, and creatures that move along the ground came on the 6th day along with Adam and Eve. So if the day=millions of years theory was true, that would explain the earlier mammal fossils. Again, I do not know. No one can really know for sure. But when it comes down to faith, I I choose to believe that God has always been and always will be, instead of having faith in the Big Bang Theory or anything that is being floated out there as "scientific."

If someone chooses to believe there is no God, or that macro-evolution did occur, that is their choice and should be respected as such, but neither is falsifiable and cannot be constituted as scientific by the definition of science itself. And while no one scientist can legitimately say that God is scientific, I don't think they have room to argue on the basis of falsifiable science. It really comes down to faith on both sides. It just depends on where that faith is placed. 

Way to keep it civil guys, very enjoyable read!

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u

Last: There are many ideas of creation... not just the Christian one. Do you think the Native Americans didn't have their separate ideas? the Greeks? the Hindus? Just because there are people out there who aren't Christian and don't believe in the Christian idea of Creationism, doesn't mean that they are all atheists and Evolutionists.

There I'm done. Go forth and reply, but as Mike said, keep it civil.quote>

This, as I see it, is the biggest problem with such kinds of debates.  Who's "creation?"  The debate is almost always framed in Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation vs. evolution.  When people discuss whether or not "Creationism" should be allowed to be taught in schools, or even the similar "intelligent design," nobody seems to be asking the questions I'm asking:

Who's version of creation is the right one?

I am a polytheist and an animist.  I also support evolution as fact and the theories of human origins as very strongly supported theories.

And finally, as for the debate as to how the universe popped into being, I offer my own views on this, though they are wholly unsubsantiated:  The universe has always existed.  It was never created.  It has always been and will always be, in some form or another.  No god necessary.

ISF

[2nerdy4u 1]

Zelgadis... you're absolutely correct. The problem with religion is that there are so many different religions out there and there is no way to actually say which one is right. You can't teach religion in schools because there are always so many sides to it and someone's gonna get mad about something. You can't just teach Christian stuff, because then some of your Jewish students might get mad. You can't teach Muslim ideas or your Native Americans might get mad. So what do you do? You obviously can't teach what the majority believes or what a good chunk of the population thinks. No, you need to divide religion and science. For all those who completely reject science, pray or do whatever you do and get your education at home (which is legal in the US, but I'm not sure about elsewhere). Simple. Then teach science to the rest of us. The thing with science is that there are no such boundaries. Science is open to all people. There are no divisions or anything. Science. Period.

Well... now I sound like some sort of stupid advertisement for science, but all the stuff I've said is true, at least to me. Have your opinions, belittle human thought, worship your gods, devote your life to study of the natural world, whatever...

Ready... Set... Reply!!

[KingTitan 6]

Yes..I agree..people care about this topic...It just seems that you are trying to monopolise it. (my opinion) Hogging scroll boards is irrelevant....I don't see the colalition...please elaborrate.

[2nerdy4u 1]

2PR in effect here? I hope not cuz it's a debate...

Okay... something I've been thinking about...

Why are we poking holes in each other's arguments like this? All we get is this back and forth thing. Evolution is not perfect and neither is Christian Creationism. We scientists are fully aware that evolution has its problems, but here's the thing, we're willing to adjust stuff. This is science in action. Research, Adjust, Repeat. The problem with Christian Creationism is that everything written in the collection of texts known as the Bible is set in stone, irrefutable, perfect. Sure, you can interpret the passages differently (which is a problem in itself), but eventually you'll end up with something contradicting something else (because the Bible was written by different people, living during different times, with different ideas). You'll find something wrong. The big problem, however, is that all of this is supposedly perfect. Fact. Period. There is no room for adjustment. Thus, all of the holes will remain, while science is patching up its holes, striving for the truth.

Well, perhaps the slightest bit off-topic, but I wonder what (civil) replies this argument will receive. It does dive a bit deeper than this whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate (which at the moment is going nowhere).

Go forth and Reply!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: zelgadis I offer my own views on this, though they are wholly unsubsantiated:  The universe has always existed.  It was never created.  It has always been and will always be, in some form or another.  No god necessary.quote>

That would greatly simplify tings, but both empirical and mathematical evidence indicates that that is not the case. Science has for a while now had Big Bang Theory, though for most of the history of that there was no consensus among scientists as to what the end of the universe would be. It was documented that the universe is expanding, but it was uncertain whether it would keep expanding forever or eventually stop expanding and start shrinking. Many scientists believed that due to gravity the expansion of the universe must be slowing down. So a team of astronomers devised a method of measuring the acceleration. What they found, however, completely baffled the scientific community. Not only is the expansion of the universe not slowing down, it's speeding up. There's still no consensus as to the cause, but dark matter is generally cited in one way or another. But there now is a commonly accepted theory for the end of the universe: that continued expansion will eventually overcome gravity to the point where galaxies, systems, planets, and eventually even atoms will all be ripped apart. This is called the "Big tear". It's due in about 50 billion years by estimates based on the results of the aforementioned experiment. The universe will continue existing after that (presumably forever), but the repelling forces of expansion will be so great that nothing can come together and stay that way, so it will be impossible for life or even matter beyond elementary particles to exist.

------------------------

It seems to me a lot of people like to mix and match science and religion as it suits them...  this makes no sense to me, personally. It's like having your cake and eating it too. Religion and science can't both be true, it's one or the other. They don't mix. Naturally, I chose science. As such I refuse to believe in the existence of any divine or supernatural being until someone can give me cold, hard proof to the contrary.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

...However, if a mutation were to occur in the same rat's germ layer, (well, I am not being accurate, but a mutation led to the development of NO tail), then the offspring would not have a tail. And so long as that allele is dominant, then the offspring of that rat, after mating, would continue to lead to no tail. However, if it is recessive, and the rat's mate has a stronger pro-tail allele, then the offspring may still have a tail. Obviously, there is a bit of a spectrum... the tail could be atrophied or stunted, or both.

Barbarossaquote>

The allele would not even have to be dominant. If it was dominant it would appear in the first generation of offspring (if inherited at all). However if it was recessive it could still be passed on to the next generation but not expressed (hidden by the more dominant "tail" allele). However the original offspring with the recessive allele can pass the recessive allele on to their offspring. Since rats have a large number of offspring the numbers with the non-expressed recessive allele could increase quite quickly. As soon as two rats which have inherited the recessive gene mate and produce offspring, there is a chance that those offspring will inherit two recessive alleles (homozygous). Since it is homozygous recessive the "no tail" allele would then be expressed.

Since an allele has to be expressed to be exposed to selection this provides a mechanism for altered alleles to spread through a population without being exposed to natural selection possibly for a considerable length of time.

An illustration using Mendelian genetics:

Population initially contains individuals all homozygous for the "tail" condition (TT). "Tail" allele (T) is dominant.

First generation - mutation in germ cell of a rat produces "no tail" allele (t) which is recessive.  The recessive gene is passed on to offspring (2nd generation) which have one dominant and one recessive allele (Tt). The population now consists of rats with TT and Tt genotypes (however phenotypes are all still "tail" as the "no tail" condition is recessive and therefore not expressed)

Third generation, off spring could be produced from individuals in the following combinations: TT x TT, TT x Tt and Tt x Tt.

Considering the product of two rats both heterozygous (Tt)

	T	t
T	TT	Tt
t	Tt	tt

There is a 25% chance that the offspring of these rats are homozygous for "no tail" (tt) condition and therefore physically have no tail.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok ..

Let me ask you this one thing.  Was anything living substance derived from this?

quote>

To answer this you would have to define life and non-life. This may seem obvious if you look right in the centre of the spectrum. However at the boundries things get a little fuzzy. For example, is a virus alive or not? When I was studying this was a legitimate question. However the chemists didn't want them, so that was that.

The experiment was a pretty good start though, and it was just the start. It showed that you could get more complex molecules from simpler ones under the right conditions. Protein Lipid bi-layers (the basis of the cell membrane) which were mentioned by a previous poster can also be formed in the lab, and this is another step.

However the<

[DOXXP29 5]

As 2nerdy4u notes in the "last" paragraph a few posts up, just about every civilization has their own theories about creation. Since in this country (U.S.) the religion of the majority is christian, that's the theory that gets pounded home and touted as being the "correct" theory. But the fact is that since no one can actually prove how the universe started or where we came from, abstract theories or concepts had to come into play to explain what is (as of yet, anyway) unexplainable. And, of course, when humans with their penchant for power, politics and control come into play, various penalties for NOT believing in the concept were intoduced. (If you don't believe this is how it is, you'll burn in hell (another abstraction) and not enjoy everlasting life (still another). Sure, the concept might very well be true, but the fact is it cannot be proven any more or less than any other. Human nature and logical thinking evoke the idea that we had to come from somewhere, but until this can be explained and proven, all we have is faith. Some of us choose to have faith in whatever concept we choose to believe in. Others want cold hard facts which, unfortunately, are not available. Not yet, anyway.

In your post, Sc4_cewl, regarding the authors of the bible, you state (quoting psalms) that "God gave the word". Now, while I'm sure they believed this and it very well may be true, what exactly does this mean? If, to follow biblical logic, we are all creations of god and god, therefore, gave us thought, would not every thought that any person has be considered to be from god? For example, if I write a song, could it not be said that since the song was created in my mind that the song is actually the word of god? If not, what would be the differentiating factors? What's the difference between god inspiring me to write the words to a song and me without god being inspired to write the words to a song? If I (or anyone, for that matter) create anything in my mind...a book, a song, a bible...is not god giving me the words through inspiration, the thought process, through sentence formation and word usage, etc? If god created me and god gave me the gift of thought (and brain function), would every word not be the word of god? So taking this a step further, if every thought that everyone has is god's word, what would make one person's version of creation any more or less valid than another's? For Duke, god's word would be science, for Zelgadis, god's word would be evolution just as for you (and the biblical authors), god's word would be the bible. If all of these are considered to be god's word, how could any one be any more or less correct than another? Just a thought...

And please note that I am in no means being sarcastic, nor do I wish to show any disrespect toward anyone or their beliefs. It's just that when the phrase "god's word" or "god has spoken to me" is used, I always wonder what criteria are used to differentiate "god's word" from thoughts, inspiration, creativity or any of the other things that are expressed through our being? Divine inspiration, human creation, channeling, how is it determined which is which?

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

I think that I'm done with this thread.

Why don't we all just accept the fact that one side has a rebuttal for everything the other says, and nothing will change either's minds...

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy

Why don't we all just accept the fact that one side has a rebuttal for everything the other says, and nothing will change either's minds...quote>

I think most of us understand that.  While they can be fun to debate, these threads are really only for discussions that will never end up going anywhere.  Participation in a thread over a controversial topic like this requires an understanding that no one is going to convert anyone else to their line of thinking.  The best that any of us can really do is state what we believe and debate the reasons as to why without any real expectation of changing another's mindset.

sam: Yeah, to answer that question, you would have to define life.  Now, I believe that I have heard that a generally accepted definition of life is that it requires 46 chromosomes, but don't hold me to that cause I really don't remember if that's what I heard or not.

Anyway, the reason why this study doesn't impress me is this - the claim to fame is that they took simple substances and made some more complex substances out of them.  This is not at all ground-breaking or revolutionary.  The idea of taking simple substances and making different or more complex substances is something that they do in chemistry all the time.

[schm0 27]

Main Entry:¹life 

Pronunciation:\?l?f\

Function:noun

Inflected Form(s):plural lives  \?l?vz\

Etymology:Middle English lif, from Old English l?f; akin to Old English libban to live — more at live

Date:before 12th century

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Source: Mirriam-Webster

[Gozer_Jep 0]

DOXXP29: What is God's word and what not is a very difficult question, and it also depends on faith. We/Christians believe that the bible is God's word to teach us who God is, and how we can be saved. (by the way: the bible is not meant, in my opinion, to use for science, because it's never meant to be).

It's not trou that every thought is God's word: God created the ability to think, but our thoughts are ours. 

God can give inspiration, but we can know God's will from the bible, so if God gives inspiration, it's for that specific person or situation, and not as a supplement to the bible or so. 

i hope this explains it enough

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[pogoboymtk 9]

Just think about this.....

If a god exists, and he/she is omniscient, then can god create something that he cannot influence or control? If he can, he's not omniscient, because he becomes limited... If he can't, he is limited... Either way, the concept of omniscience is simply ridiculous in itself. Nothing in the universe is perfect, so if there is a creator of some sort that fits the model of an intelligent designer, then it cannot be perfect itself. The logical conclusion is that the Christian God is simply not possible. The concept of ominscience is an oxymoron.

[Gozer_Jep 0]

Now, as to a couple of points made,

City11 said: Yes...Yes...I see what you mean...I have no anwer to where God came from...but I just want people to understand that we didn't just appear...the things that made us didn't just appear...the things that made the things that made us didn't just appear....but if there was no God, no greater being...how did it all start...who started it?quote>

You have shot yourself in the foot. If theists are so sure that God created everything, but they can't reconcile the paradox of where God came from, then they can't really argue, can they? If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. If everything does not have to have a cause, then why the insistence on God?

quote>

 

Time is a dimension, and God stands above time: God has always been there, and will always be. For us, humans, everything is in chronological order, but for God a day is like thousand years and thousand years like one day.

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: Gozer_Jep

Now, as to a couple of points made,

City11 said: Yes...Yes...I see what you mean...I have no anwer to where God came from...but I just want people to understand that we didn't just appear...the things that made us didn't just appear...the things that made the things that made us didn't just appear....but if there was no God, no greater being...how did it all start...who started it?quote>

You have shot yourself in the foot. If theists are so sure that God created everything, but they can't reconcile the paradox of where God came from, then they can't really argue, can they? If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. If everything does not have to have a cause, then why the insistence on God?

quote>

 

Time is a dimension, and God stands above time: God has always been there, and will always be. For us, humans, everything is in chronological order, but for God a day is like thousand years and thousand years like one day.quote>

 

That's a point I live by myself.

And someone complimented my post from a few posts up: it all comes down to faith between both arguments. And I feel thats 100% correct. 

And for those that want to challenge the fact of "where did God come from?" can only utilize their faith to believe that he's been here all along. From what I believe, God has been here forever, before there was a universe. I imagine it as just nothing. No existence of anything, not even a rock or a speck of dirt, except for God. And then God decided to create a universe, with all its galaxies, stars, solar systems, and moons. And he did it in 7 days, according to Genesis. 

So basically it just boils down to faith. Do you have enough faith to believe in the events outlined in the Bible? Do you have enough faith to believe that the whole existence of life was molded by God's hands? And that's where the debate should ultimately end, because we all share different opinions, whether it be creationist beliefs or faith in the evolutionary theories. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ron Swanson 1]

Originally posted by: pogoboymtk Just think about this.....

If a god exists, and he/she is omniscient, then can god create something that he cannot influence or control? If he can, he's not omniscient, because he becomes limited... If he can't, he is limited... Either way, the concept of omniscience is simply ridiculous in itself. Nothing in the universe is perfect, so if there is a creator of some sort that fits the model of an intelligent designer, then it cannot be perfect itself. The logical conclusion is that the Christian God is simply not possible. The concept of ominscience is an oxymoron.

quote>

 

First off, lets stray from God being a he/she. I really don't recall in any religion where God is a she. Though, not extremely important to the conversation, lets just make that clear. As Christians, the belief is that God is omniscent, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Alpha and Omega (beginning and the end). God simply once said simply "I am that I am." 

If God is who he says he is, and Jesus is who he says he was, and it was documented historically that Jesus did indeed walk on this earth, then logically it would seem the Bible true. If the Bible is taken as true, however intrepreted, then it goes to reason that God is omniscent because he says he is. But it is much more complicated than that, it seems, for many people. But this is the easiest way to explain it without writing a novel on here.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: zelgadis I offer my own views on this, though they are wholly unsubsantiated:  The universe has always existed.  It was never created.  It has always been and will always be, in some form or another.  No god necessary.quote>

That would greatly simplify tings, but both empirical and mathematical evidence indicates that that is not the case. quote>

Perhaps, but neither indicate what was around before the so-called Big Bang.  Perhaps indeed the universe is expanding more rapidly.  But we have observed only a miniscule fraction of time in the universe.  Perhaps it goes through periods of acceleration and slowdowns?  Many forces heretofore unknown could cause this to happen.  Science is only on the brink of the depths as to the nature of the universe.  There is a lot more we simply don't know compared to what we do know.  What's a layperson like me to do other than sit around and guess?  Not that highly educated scientists know much more either.  Not all of them agree on the Big Bang. 

Again, nobody is asking the question that I'm asking.  "What was around a billion years before the Big Bang?"  They say the Big Bang was the "beginning."  The beginning of what?  The universe as we know it.  It doesn't mean there wasn't another universe before that.  Maybe the Big Bang wasn't the beginning.  Maybe it was the "middle."  Maybe it was something else.  Nobody knows.

Most importantly, I wholeheartedly acknowledge that my guesses are merely that:  guesses.  Still if we hold that the Big Bang is true, that means there was something before the universe.  Something had to go "bang."  What was that?  That something could very easily have been something else long before the Big Bang.  

We'll never know in my lifetime.  So I'm keen to guess.  And I'm keen to change my guesses the more we find out. 

Mathematics isn't the end-all here anyway.  It explains a lot.  But it can't explain why I can touch something.  I still remember my old geometry teacher explaining that mathematically speaking, it was impossible to touch something because the distance, in decimals, that your hand approaches the object can go to infinity.  Mathematics is also a human invention, as are many things.  Trust it, I do, but not unconditionally, and certainly not to explain things of which we maybe know 1% of what there is to know.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a lot quicker than guesses on the universe.  We have observed it, on many occasions, firsthand.  So unless some really amazing new bit of information comes along, I'm willing to hold it as true.  I also trust it, but again, not unconditionally. 

ISF

[snickm 2]

Barbarossa: How can you say that "God has never said anything." How could you possibly know if God has spoken? Just because he hasn't spoken to you doesn't mean he hasn't ever spoken to anyone. That seems pretty illogical if you ask me.

[Godzillaman 21]

Why do people still post in this thread? Its useless. All it does is get people frustrated from trying to persuade people to believe in God or science. I believe in both, as there is a way that they can both co-exist together. Argue against me all you want, I don't really care, but when we are in our final minutes...we will all see which is true...