h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just thought of something... Have you ever noticed how people always whine about how Christianity is so 'unscientific' but then don't even question the really weird Eastern religions? There's some pretty bizarre stuff out there that a lot of people will swallow hook, line, and sinker without thinking twice. Those same people will then blast Christians for blindly following superstitious nonsense... I just thought I'd vent for a bit. Don't mind me.
 
 

Yes I have, bro.
And also, I'd like to point out that evolution does NOT 'prove' the nonexistence of God etc. etc.
Life doesn't start all by itself. We shouldn't rule out Evolution as part of God's plan.
We shouldn't say 'the big band disproves Christianity' either. Because who's to say what we see as the Big Bang wasn't God making the universe.

I agree. Theoretically, I suppose God could have used Evolution as a means to creation. However, I don't think that He did for two reasons: 1) I don't think there's enough evidence for it, and 2) Evolution is an extremely inefficient and cruel means to create (especially for a loving God) since it takes millions of years and requires the deaths of thousands of species. At any rate, many (but not all) die-hard Evolutionists out there will insist that it was a random process.

Furthermore, I agree that the Big Bang doesn't disprove Christianity, but I do think it's important that it be asserted that the Big Bang wouldn't have started without at least a 'push' from some sort of supernatural entity. I don't have a clue how God created the Universe. It could very likely have been a 'bang.' As far as I'm concerned, it could just as likely have been a 'poof' or 'zap.' The main thing is that God did create the Universe.

I do find it odd, though, that one would dismiss evolution due to lack of evidence, but embrace the Christian god, for which there is none. At least evolution can be disproved... all we have to do is discover a horse fossil in a Pre-Cambrian strata. The fact that this simple test has been weathered through 150 years of archaeological work argues rather strongly for it. Just because we don't understand the mechanism for it, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

An excellent point. Therefore, by your logic, the fact that there is no evidence against the existence of God -- despite thousands of years of scrutiny -- should argue even more strongly for God.

I've always been amused at how evolutionists rant about how the Cambrian explosion proves evolution. I could just as easily say that it proves Creation -- rather than seeing a gradual increase in the amount and complexity of life throughout the strata, we see an incredible explosion of life. Reminds me of a certain 'myth'...

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you're on pretty shaky ground. You have no explanation for what started the Big Bang. You have no explanation for how or why the universe exists at all. You have no evidence that man in all his complexity evolved from inorganic matter. You have no explanation for how such a thing might have happened. You have no reason that I've heard for not believing in God other than your various blasts against Christianity (which don't really qualify -- they just attack Christianity, not the concept of God).

As for the science of evolution, that is also on extremely shaky ground. There's just too much that doesn't make sense according to evolution. Here's just a sample:

1)time -- The earth just hasn't been aroung long enough of it for evolution to have taken place.

2)sex -- How could life have possibly evolved into two separate sexes? Furthermore, sexual reproduction is an immense waste of time and energy if your only concern is propagating the species.

3)reproduction -- I think that everyone will pretty much agree that reproduction is a complex and difficult thing. However, logically, the very first lifeform ever to exist had to have the ability to reproduce. Besides, why should anyone care if the species continues? More specifically, why should the first lifeform care?

4)eyes -- Eyes detect electromagnetic radiation and send it on to the brain, where that radiation is interpreted. Presumably, early life would not have had eyes (since they are so extremely complex). How would it have gotten them? How would it know that there was EM radiation to detect unless it could detect it? But it had no apparatus for detecting it... and so on. In other words, how would life know to evolve eyes unless it already had eyes?

This doesn't even get into the sheer odds against evolution and the insane string of conditions that would have to be just so for it to occur. It's preposterous. Of course, there's also the fact that no one has actually observed evolution in action. I don't dismiss evolution for lack of evidence, I dismiss evolution because it is simply inadequate to explain much of anything.

As for evidence for God, what other option is there? Either life sprung up via natural means or it was started by some outside source. Evolution is the best man has come up with for the nature explanation, and scientists are jumping ship left and right because they're beginning to see that it doesn't work. Then there's the Big Bang. I don't care what elaborate excuses and explanations people try to come up with, you simply cannot get something from nothing without some sort of God.

I could go into a whole spiel on the ridiculous string of impossible circumstances required to get the universe to exist at all, but I won't unless you want me to. Bottom line: there is no way to explain how things are unless you include some sort of God. Believe me, I've tried.

I'd better stop there. This is getting pretty long.

"the fact that there is no evidence against the existence of God... should argue even more strongly for God." - You've got my logic reversed. There is ample evidence for evolution, and a complete lack of contrary evidence. The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God is evidence of absence... there is no god.

I have no explanation for the Big Bang or how the universe exists, correct. But you do, and it is scientifically unfounded. Just because I don't have a preconstructed alternative for those questions doesn't make your answers any more valid. "I don't know" is a worthwhile answer, as it motivates people to find out. Your answer closes the mind to alternatives, and the alternatives HAVE to have more merit than the othodoxy.

"scientists are jumping ship left and right because they're beginning to see that it doesn't work" - You're making this up. The theory is undergoing research, and alternative versions are being offered, but there is no mass exodus away from it. The intelligentsia is today as it has always been, increasingly skeptical of mythological explanations for natural phenomena. Approximately 3% of the American population is atheist... among adults in the top 5% in IQ, this number becomes 60%.

Furthermore, if God created life, why did he have to muck around with it for so long? Why did he start out with aquatic, single-celled organisms, then move along to amphibians, then build huge and stupid reptiles to dominate the earth, then wipe them out and allow primates to grow along, slowly at first, until they figured out how to walk erect and sharpen sticks to kill their food, at which time he suddenly declares them worthy to become one with him. For an omniscient being, this sounds to me as terribly sloppy and inefficient. However, evolution offers an adequate explanation for why this process occurred as it did.

"sexual reproduction is an immense waste of time and energy if your only concern is propagating the species." - This argument strengthens, not weakens, the argument for evolution. If this was God's design, he screwed the pooch on this one... especially as sex has been one of the biggest roots of evil in man's history. The OT and the NT devote tons of rules and commandments to the subject. However, you're seeing evolution as planned, which is not the case. Evolution is arbitrary. Sometimes it produces animals that are better able to survive, but sometimes it just produces effects that are pointless. You have a tailbone, and there is no justification for it. You also have useless things in your body like an appendix. Man's erect style of walking is ungainly and slow, and puts undue strain on the spine and the leg joints, which debilitates in old age. Man's method of childbirth is incredibly dangerous to both child and mother, and the child is hopelessly vulnerable during its early life, unlike many other species which can fend for themselves immediately. If all of this argues for divine design, then our designer needs to go back to school.

"You simply cannot get something from nothing without some sort of God." This argument collapses on itself through an infinite loop. If nothing comes from nothing, then God has to come from something. Who created God? Who created his creator? Who created... ad infinitum. If, on the other hand, you can accept that God came from nothing, and managed to create himself, then why are we the exception? Can't we have created ourselves? Are WE God?