Man concieved god in thought, then made markings, then made art/design, then wrote text, then compiled stories from thought.

Then variously coerced, threatened, maimed, and killed anyone who didn't subscribe to the story of the day.

Who is the perpetrator - men.
Who is the beneficiary - men.
Who declares god with no proof - men.

God has not defended itself from the falsities associated with it over many thousands of years, and hundreds of religious variations; it does not exist.

God has not saved its 'creation' of Earth from its 'creation' of man, in order to save innocent animal life from chemical poisons and radioactivity etc. created by man; it does not exist.

but for a moment, let's say God does exist.

and God actually gave humans free will.

what you describe would have still took place.

and science has yet to disprove God.

in fact, astrophysicists like Krause have discredited the BBT due to the evidence provided by the COBE telescope. he now believes the BANG happened and then the laws of physics took in effect.

we have sampled billions of single cell species in 150+ years using the microscope, and only time it ever divided was when biologists play God and forced it unnaturally.

we still are back to square one because mathematics only proves so much.

even Neil Tyson Degrasse and company have reverted to conjuring up the idealism of simulated universe.

and look at this Pew Poll Research findings:

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

whoah!!

when did science begin believing in God?

When did science stop believing in God ? Science doesn't believe or disbelieve.Does the fact that there are ministers who don't believe in God confirm or negate the existence of a god ? Science cannot disprove the existence of a god.It may come up with a better explanation of various phenomena which people claim prove the existence of god but that still doesn't prove anything other than the beliefs these people held were based on false premises.Failure to disprove the existence of god does not constitute proof that god exists.

I agree. It goes both ways.

I agree^^, I quoted but couldn't comment after, most scientists throughout history have believed in god, if you look at history on a time line it's pretty recent history that some scientists have started doubting it. A little after they started doubting the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth...

which makes the pew poll even more alarming knowing it was conducted based upon current scientists beliefs.

i read where many scientist became believers in God through the study of DNA. although, the discoverers of DNA held fast to being atheist, it was many others who seem to have an enlightenment about it that the co-discoverers never found.

If you create the perfect garden, for whatever reason since you don't need to eat, and then put a breeding pair of almost anything in it to breed up and run amok at their own free will, soon you won't have a garden. Any pet owner with mice, rats, dogs, etc. in a confined pet area knows this.

If a god created man, the strain should have been modified about at least 10,000 years ago to prevent violence, cruelty, and vandalism against the Earth.

Maybe when the distance is nearer, the Annunaki will send a new "fashioner of men" to sort us out, and the questions will be answered; or another johannes the fish man will emerge from the sea to educate us; or a serpent from the sky will enlighten us. And winged bacon slices will flutter down seeking frypans and hot plates.

But no fair skinned old father christmas lookalike with a halo is going to turn up and hurl lightning bolts about.

Man invented the halo, the images, the iconography and symbology, the histories, the stories, the laws and rules and punishments.

If god created man, no one would get away with making up a different story.

I don't know. But I think its easy to conceive of why humans may believe in gods/goddesses. But why would gods/goddesses create and believe in us

I believe an intelligence bigger than life created all life. I believe people refer to that intelligence by different names that MAN created because MAn Created language to communicate with each other.

So Man created a term , God, to describe a reality of the higher intelligence which created life. I believe there is no word man did not create, and those creations sometimes describe their own experience or someone else and sometimes they are complete fabrications. I do not believe the that which the word God is describing has been fabricated.

let's just conclude that God did create man.


man still would disobey God, commit murder, lie, cheat, steal, and be competitive towards other humans.

even in the stories of the Bible, where God did great things for men like king Saul, he still never listened to God and eventually committed suicide.

according to that story, Saul was given great victories over his enemies, great spoils, and the prophet Samuel would go to Saul before battle and tell him you will win. with everything given to Saul by God, Saul still said, screw you God!!


so to say, God is to blame because He did not force man to be kind, makes no sense at all. you keep forgetting we have a history of what man does to achieve power with or without God.


look at Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, many others including presidents of America. those men still were going to do as they wanted to even in the face of having adversity.

look at the south with slavery. they went to war and had millions butchered just because they refused to be like Lincoln and treat people as equals.


no, man would still commit everything you listed no matter what. man has been and always will be his own worst enemy!!

I am amazed that this is even a question.

Evolution

Evolution was a theory developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. One can discuss numerous "proofs" given to substantiate the claims of evolution. The one question that science cannot answer is "What laboratory has generated life from non-life"? This is the foundation on which all "evolution" rests upon.

I was just watching a Nova documentary on our local PBS channel on genetic manipulation. Of all the hope they talked about an MIT professor (with a PHd ) made the final comment:

"We cannot create life from non-living matter"!

With all the intelligence this world has in trying to create life they admit it's impossible. They can create chemicals that exist when life does exits but not life itself. Please explain how unintelligent matter create life? Of course, two responses are offered:

1. Bacteria came on asteroids. Asteroids are either burned up in the atmosphere or a massive explosion (generating massive heat) will both destroy any kind of life.

2. Aliens. Even if we give credence to this concept how did their life forms develop? Evolution tells us that billions of years ago the Big Bang threw out all of the existing universe. When an explosion takes place massive amounts of energy is released. Massive amounts of energy results in massive heat. Again, any living organisms would be incinerated in the Big Bang.

Many of the foundational supports of evolution can be easily knocked out from under it. But this one monumental question of the origins of life has to be answered before any of this theory can be considered real science.

36:3.5 In the bestowal of life the Life Carriers transmit nothing of their personal natures, not even on those spheres where new orders of life are projected. At such times they simply initiate and transmit the spark of life, start the required revolutions of matter in accordance with the physical, chemical, and electrical specifications of the ordained plans and patterns. Life Carriers are living catalytic presences which agitate, organize, and vitalize the otherwise inert elements of the material order of existence. -The Urantia Book

Just a few things to ponder...

Life on this planet is a result of 2nd or even 3rd generation stars.
Lots of elements that exist today didn't exist in the early Universe.
So even if there was a "Big Bang" (which I disagree with) there wasn't some important to life elements in abundance in the Universe till much, much later.

Chaos is chaos because we don't fully understand everything about everything everywhere. Right now, we don't know and may not even be able to fathom the patterns in the Universe. Is chaos the absence of patterns or the absence of our understanding of the patterns that do exist?

The building blocks of life are prevalent in our star system. Amino acids form seemingly randomly. How those elements come together in nature is not fully and completely understood. Life is generated by the combination of naturally occurring elements chaotically.

This chaotic action could be considered God's will or it could be considered a pattern that we simply don't fully understand yet.
Just because we can't yet construct a chromosome doesn't mean we may never be able to. It has form and exists. If it has form and exists it has a pattern to that form and existence.

"We cannot create life from non-living matter"! is an assumption based on our current knowledge level. While right now, at this time, it may be accurate it may not be accurate forever.

Right now, science cannot turn lead into gold. Not because it can't be done, we just don't know how. At one time, we didn't know how to make a diamond, yet we now make diamonds and things harder than diamonds.

At one time we thought the Sun was as hot as something could be, yet we have the Z-Machine at Sandia that can produce temperatures hotter than the Sun.

God is not a single thing. Everyone has a different version of what God is in their heads. God gives us contentment in a Universe of chaos. As we unlock deeper understanding our impressions of God fluctuate to encompass and justify what we still don't know.
Our impressions of God are very different than those of people in the 6th century or those from BC. People in 25,000AD will have different impressions of God than us.

Yet evolution is based on life developing from non-life. A theory not provable yet evolution is accepted no matter. In fact, the only repeatable test tube experiment performed in this area was performed by Louis Pasteur. His scientific conclusion (used and proven in everyday food production) was/is that once life is destroyed it does not regenerate on it's own.

One of the major reasons evolution isn't been rejected is because some people do not like the alternative.

The laws of physics are universal throughout this universe no matter where one exists.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics are scientifically unshakable no matter what technologies we develop.

1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changes molecular form when used.
2nd law: (Entropy) Everything in this universe moves from order (complex) to chaos (simple).

The foundation of evolution is that life has evolved from lower forms to higher forms: chaos to order. This violates Entropy at every level. The only reason some things appear to have halted or slowed chaos is the involvement of human intelligence. Even this requires increased use of energy and human effort. Nature by itself will always exhibit Entropy.

Nothing can change from simple (chaos) to complex (order) forms without intelligent interaction.

I agree Dave and so true.
I hope you have a great day friend.

Evolution is merely a random genetic mutation which gives breeding or survival advantage to an individual over the rest of the population, so if it breeds, the new genetics are more efficient than the original, in some way, and become a successful population which then dominates for a while, and then another random genetic mutation may occur, possibly continuing evolution in another direction.

It's not a "higher form" just a more successful form.
Genetic mutation follows the laws of physics. No magic hocus pocus.
Entropy still affects the organism at all levels no matter what.

The changing body and facial traits of your genetic line, and down through your family tree as far back as you want to go, is also evolution small scale; egg/sperm combination and any mutations may be good and strong and attractive, or may be ugly or weak and susceptible to disease, and not breed.

Many mutations are detrimental but some are beneficial and are kept going because of their advantages.
Usually what's attractive to breed with, and what can survive the environment.