How can anyone believe in evolution?

Question

I am not denying evolution in the sense of interspecies, but the fact we came from a non-living organism requires more faith than intelligent design or creationsim. Evolutionists may say they have a "science" but it is simply a theory, with no way of proving it, just as Creationsim is. I have faith in God, just as scientists have faith in evolution.

Also, "The Law of Conservation of Matter" says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so evolutionists, could you please answer me where your matter comes from when your science directly disproves it?

Answer 1

You can prove evolution. And why is it not evolution that God used to make man. In the Bible god makes the fishes then reptiles then birds then mammals and then man. It would be logical for God to take something that was there and improve upon it.

Then there are the fossil records. These layers of past fossil history are laid down one on top of the other. The simple creatures are on the bottom by themselves and as you move up in the time line to the present day more complex organisms are added into the fossil record. Until modern man emerges in the last 100,000 years.

The 6 days of creation is meant that even God gets a day of rest. the seventh day of the week is a Holy day and we should honor God by taking it as a day of rest.

And just how long is one of God's days in relation to our own ?

And why couldn't it have been that  God created the Big Bang.  In the beginning there was darkness and then there was light. How God did it we still trying to figure that one out.

And then there is the DNA of Chimps and Man. Our DNA has 98% of the genes that Chimps have. That is Humans are closer to chimps then any other animal on this planet.

God in his wisdom made us out of the same stuff as all other life on this planet. Everything is related so this is why God told us to care for every animal and plant in the Garden of Eden we are a part of them all.

Matter and Energy can not be created or destroied just changed.

The sum total of everything when we add up all of the positve energy and matter with allof the negative energy and matter is nothing.

Somehow God seperated the positive and ngative, and out of the darkness or nothingingness made our Universe.

Answer 2

1)  The beginning of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.  If you have a problem with that, you still don't have a problem with evolution.

2)  The laws of thermodynamics are a bit more complicated than you have been lead to believe.  Rest assured, they do not contridict evolution.

3)  Now you're talking about the big bang.  Again, that has nothing to do with evolution.  No wonder you don't believe it - you don't seem to have a clue what evolution is.  Please take a couple of science courses and then come back.

Answer 3

It's not 'my' science and you can't bend it or misquote out of context to falsely claim that it 'disproves' anything.

The main difference between science and religion is that the first is open to all explanations and willing to change its mind, and the second only allows explanations that fall within a certain predefined framework - a framework which may not be questioned.

Answer 4

You touch on two scientific theories.  The first is "evolution" and the second is "big bang."  The big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  I think that you misunderstand the concept of "theory" in science and you are treating it as an unproven hyothesis.  A theory in science is a proven hypothesis and is a fact.  There may be nuances about exactly how it works and how humans developed but evolution is a fact.

The big bang theory scientifically explains how the universe came into being and is, again, a fact.  It is consistent with everything we know about the way matter behaves at the quantum level.

I am a religious person and believe in God.  I do not see anything inconsistent with the existence of God, a messianic Christ and evolution or big bang.

Answer 5

i don't think you understand this issue entirely.  the law of conservation of matter has nothing to do with evolution.  matter is matter, whether it makes up a self-aware being (such as you or i) or a rock, or a tree, or an ant.  consciousness is not a physical phenomenon in and of itself - it's the by-product of certain types of matter working together.

so are you suggesting that man and the earth are 6,000 years old, etc.?  or do you believe that man is older than that, but just didn't evolve from apes?  to me, you gotta go with either 6,000 years or evolution, b/c any middle ground is taking some science (bones of humans that are older than 6K)  but then ignoring other science (fossils from millions of years ago).

in terms of evolution, check this out:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

now, in terms of your most significant question, the evolution of some non-living to living, this is where you raise the most interesting point.  where does life begin?  self-awareness?  undertaking basic functions?  do you count singe-cell organisms as life?  it looks like you do, so that's where we need to start.    and when you start there, you'll realize that simple life can be jump started pretty easily.  from there on out, it's just a matter of getting more and more complex organisms, via EVOLUTION :)

i commend you for entertaining the debate and i know this answer is subpar, but i'm at work so i can only do so much off the top of my head.

Answer 6

Please learn some science before you try to argue against it.

1. Abiogenesis (life from non-life by accident) is a separate issue, and is probably the most extreme hypothesis man has ever made.  Relevant evidence either way is scant indeed.

2. Evolutionary processes are well established in science.  The only question is how far they go.  A creationist shouldn't care whether fish and birds came from a common genetic ancestor.  A scientist should contemplate the hypothesis until there's enough evidence, objectively evaluated, to support or refute it.  That evidence may well arrive within a few decades.

3. Conservation of matter is irrelevant to both of the above.  Cosmology studies the possible history of the universe since its origin.  Its certainty diminishes exponentially as you go back in time to near the proposed 'big bang' origin.  But it doesn't even begin to address where it all came from.  Some M-brane theories begin to propose an origin relating to intersecting M-branes in a space of 11 or more dimensions.  Even they don't address where those branes came from.

4. Many scientists also have faith in God, including evolutionists and cosmologists of various flavors.  The Bible really contains no argument against evolution.  The message of Genesis 1 is that God created the universe.  Its emphasis isn't on the how.  In my opinion, even as a conservative Christian, insisting on a 6-earth-day creation or that each species (a human classification) is a separate creative event, is reading too much into the literature to form doctrines which aren't foundational or supported by the rest of Scripture.