Quote:
Originally posted by preciousjeni
Personally: I believe that God created the universe (of course including original flora and fauna) as whole and complete. I also believe that adaptations and mutations occur, but do not support the theory that dinosaurs became birds or monkeys became humans.
|
If everything was created whole and complete, why do we have a record of human progression, up until the current
homo sapiens sapiens? Why can we see birds moving through different forms, developing feathers and reducing size and bone density, until flight became the exclusive form of motion rather than an exception?
Are you just believing in this notion, in spite of evidence to the contrary, because it fits you spiritually? That's completely fine if you are, but you seem to be doing the "I know all the evidence points toward X, and I'm fine with you believing X, but I believe Y" dance, and I genuinely want to understand.
Note that almost every (non-evangelical) Christian denomination accepts macroevolution as correct, including the notoriously stodgy Vatican (this point is also geared toward your "plenty of non-Christians believe in intelligent design" comments earlier).
Quote:
Originally posted by preciousjeni
Anyway, my question remains - regardless of one's belief in an active and personal God - where did original matter come from in order for everything to be formed?
|
Where did
homo erectus come from?
Personally, you're asking a question that has no 'correct' answer - our understanding of the nature of matter is still incomplete. This sets up a false analogy, set out by many, many intelligent design proponents - it goes something like:
If you walk through the woods and see a rock, it could have reached that point through any variety of methods. If you instead see a watch, you must assume that it was dropped or otherwise left there by another person, as no set of circumstances otherwise could result in that particular item existing.
You're making a version of this argument extensible to the existence of the universe - namely, if we can't explain it, it must be due to God.
Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that God created the universe in order to set the process of life in motion - this would be akin to God creating the legos with which to build the space station and all that good stuff. However, it is patently incorrect to imply that since there's no other explanation, it must be God - it's a twisting of Occam's Razor to incorrect use.
The counter to that would be simply asking why it couldn't just exist? Can you see how strange that argument sounds? Can you apply that to any other arguments you've read in this thread?
Hybrid Mode
