Because we have no evidence of God, yet we actually have evidence of the Big Bang, including images showing the temperature distribution at the time.For instance if you believe in the big bang theory as the source of how the universe started, how is that not equivalent to believing that God created the universe? They both require the same type of faith, just in a different source. This scenario has nothing to do about knowledge, but everything to do with faith.
You really don't understand the difference between science and religion, do you?What I'm trying to say is there is no answer that can be applied universally upon everyone, because every explanation of life requires some kind of faith and it's not fair for the scientific community to try and claim they have the golden answer because they don't.
Imagine there's a large sack full of something, and nobody can open it. The priest simply proclaims that it's full of bricks based on a vision he had. The scientist pokes and prods the sack, feels that it's full of round things, and hypothesizes they are oranges. When a subsequent scientist repeats the trial, she finds that the round things are too small, and are more likely to be nectarines. All three people could be wrong, but the difference is that the scientists base their hypotheses on evidence, and are willing to acknowledge that they don't know. Even though nobody knows, the evidence DOES show 100% that the contents are not bricks. There's no 'faith' in that - it's simply the product of evidence.
It's the same with evolution - the data lead to a conclusion, subsequent analysis has shown the conclusion to be supported, so there's no reason to regard it as anything but the most likely correct answer. "Faith" plays no part, as nobody says it's absolute truth, only that the evidence supports it, and flatly contradicts creationism.
So, fossils don't exist? The cosmic microwave background doesn't exist?Do you think the beginnings of the universe, and the origin of life on Earth are things that are knowable and are open to logical evaluation? I don't. I believe they are both unknowable and are only open to idle speculation and faith.
That's like saying we can never know where diamonds come from because nobody watched the current diamonds form. Just because we weren't around to directly observe something doesn't mean it left no evidence of its prior state.
Strawman. I never said there was 100% proof of a given hypothesis of life on Earth, only that the evidence we DO have flatly contradicts your theory.The fact is there isn't 100% evidence, and it's not possible to ever have 100% evidence about the origin of life on Earth. If you want to take the little evidence there is and stretch it by faith, go for it. You can put your faith in whatever you choose to, no one is stopping you.
To return to the sack analogy, we may not know whether it has oranges or nectarines, but the known roundness *does* rule out bricks.
No, actually, there's only a myth which cannot be interpreted literally, because it's just plain stupid (we have *proof* that humans were never represented by just 2 individuals, written throughout our genes).God is clear about how life on Earth was created and it was not through the speciation of one cell.
See above.Can you please explain to me what is allegorical about Genesis 1:26-30 and Genesis 2:7? They are affirmations from God that we are not a result of speciation.
Care to explain how you account for the dead viri in our genomes that are PRECISELY matched to those in chimps?
Care to explain how you can claim God created each species when we have directly observed the evolution of new species in the wild?
Or are you going to just ignore facts and evidence, as usual?
Does he specify HOW man was created? Does it say he could not have evolved? Remember, these stories may have been divinely inspired, but they were transcribed by barely-literate shepards who thought stars were holes in the blanket of night.Then do you not accept the Bible as the word of God? He clearly states that He created man.
It's called the fossil record, look it up. Yes, there are gaps, but that no more disproves it than the gaps in history prove that George Washington was a space alien.Please show this undeniable evidence starting from the first living organism, to now, showing all the speciations from that original organism.
Actually, the documents of a flood all derive from the Middle East, which makes it more likely they're simply exaggerations of a large local flood. There are no flood records from Andean cultures, or Australia, or the Kalahari. Given that *any* rainfall is a notable event in all three locales, if the Flood were real, I doubt they wouldn't have noticed it.How so? There are more historical accounts of a flood than just from the Bible
Sure, but that means nothing. Claiming that any factual accuracy of the Bible proves it is the word of God is stupid. I'm writing a novel right now, and it does have factual accuracy - there is indeed a system of abandoned subway tunnels under Cincinnati, but that does not in any way support the existence of aliens and socialist werewolves rampaging through the city.Do you believe that Jesus actually lived on this Earth 2,000+ years ago? Or is the Bible wrong about that as well, even though there's documents from Jewish and Roman historians about Jesus?