Of course all of this marvelous complexity & beauty evolved from some primordial soup or slime! If you ask me, it takes more faith to believe that, then it does to believe that God created it all!
The guy below me who answered using a watch as an analogy misses the point. The complexity of the watch doesn't demand the conclusion that a God created it. But it does demand the conclusion that an intelligent person created it ... there wasn't just a big bang & it came to be! How much more true of our universe!
2006-07-06 13:31:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by mom1025 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Give up. Colorful creatures evolved to the way they are, many look like that for mating purposes. The big bang did not make that all, and I think you are the first to suggest that. The big bang is just one scientific theory, and it says that the bang made matter, planets, etc, and then that stuff came together to make organisms that evolved. How can you believe in a creator? Some things don't make sense, which is why there is religion. There were things that the caveman, and unintelligent people don't understand today, so they say god did it as opposed to trying to think and understand. The obvious is that religion is wrong. These things I mentioned are just a few examples of why you are wrong. I can't even start to explain the scientific truth of the universe to you, because you have not a clue. Science has explanations, and proof now, so you don't need religion anymore. When you are ready to think, try atheism.
2006-07-06 13:41:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, using your own logic. If beautiful, wonderful, complex things need creation, does that mean god ain't either beautiful, wonderful or complex? Since if he's any of these things he will need a creator, that is, using your own logic. Another solution is, he is not beautiful, nor wonderful and more simple than an amoeba, why to call that "god"? A second argument, what's the point of reference to claim what's beauty apart from our very limited universe called earth? Logic should be consistent through the arguments to reach a valid conclusion.
The use of a complex thing to explain the existence of complex things does not really answer anything. To "assume" such being as god needs no creation is to beg the question, since you are violating your own arguments, but assuming god doesn’t need a creation without being verified as true, a clear example of a fallacy known as “to beg the question”.
Now you say some things are hard to understand, I agree there. A lot of things are hard to understand, actually, our understanding of the universe is close to nothing when considering all the possibilities. The question is, when we can't understand something, why use "the unknown" to explain it? Why just not admit we don't know? Sometimes it seems god is used as synonymous of "ignorance" in the sense that, if I can't understand something, god is the answer. Why use this unverifiable and untestable being as the answer for the verifiable and testable?
The existence of the world and the universe only proves the existence of that, the world and the universe, no more than that. If you have a hard time wondering how it all came here, I don't see why come up with "deities" to explain it, just admit your ignorance like we atheist do. There are no empirical evidence of either god or the process of creation to accept any of your argument as valid.
2006-07-06 13:44:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Oedipus Schmoedipus 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh, gosh, look! It's the "I think everything is pretty, therefore God" argument! If you would take the time to learn even a little bit about nature, you'd find quite a lot of ugliness, too. Let's list a few, shall we?
I once saw a photo in a book, of a lion chowing down on a gazelle, which was still alive and gasping in pain. Yeah, that's some amazing stuff, isn't it? Wow, I bet God had a front-row seat.
Where is the beauty in a baby born with one misshapen head, two deformed bodies attached to it, and part of its intestinal tract exposed? Must be one of those examples of God's wild imagination, huh?
Ah, volcanoes...spectacular examples of nature's raw and unstoppable power. They can wipe out hundreds of square miles of forest, destroying an entire ecosystem and millions of animals from insects to mammals. If the Old Testament is any indication, then I am sure that God takes pleasure in the burnt carcasses of animals, and that is why he made volcanoes.
Every year, tens of thousands of people die from earthquakes, landslides, and tidal waves, all of which are examples of nature doing business-as-usual. If God knew they would be so destructive to humanity, why did he create them? Couldn't he have made a planet that functioned without them?
Did you know that cold and influenza viruses have a neat little ability to evolve rapidly in response to changing conditions? This is why a cure for the common cold will not be forthcoming any time soon, and each new batch of 'flu vaccine is different. It is difficult to kill an enemy when it keeps putting on a new disguise...but I guess that's how God wanted it.
Here in Arizona, we're not getting enough rain. In other states, they're getting too much. Can't God create some kind of balance?
HURRICANE KATRINA. Remember that? Spectacular example of human frailty in the face of nature's onslaught. It will be years, if not decades, before New Orleans and its surrounding towns will be back to normal.
The extinction of the dinosaurs is currently believed to have been brought about by a massive meteorite slamming into the planet where the Yucatan Peninsula is located. This is one of a great many mass extinctions, and the others may also have been instigated by similar bombardments. The world is pockmarked with thousands of craters, showing that we are a very vulnerable world, indeed. Is this part of the beauty of nature, too?
P.S. Please, PLEASE read Stephen Hawking's, "A Brief History of Time". It explains the beginnings of the universe as we know it in simple, easy-to-understand language without a lot of mathematical equations and scientific jargon. You will learn what a theory is--it is NOT just an educated guess, as you Christians seem to think. If you wish to be educated, then start there.
2006-07-06 14:06:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Antique Silver Buttons 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
ok, i'm an atheist to the core and i firmly believe there is no God no heaven no hell no devil. And as such to answer this question i will off these thoughts. First of all who wants birds and flowers around that are not attractive to ones sight or sense of smell. you must admit that the need to feed would tell somone why kill the bird i like to look at when this other feathered creature is fat and ugly and much larger. why cultivate the flowers that make the opposite sex reel away in disgust? and i want you to realise that the plants and animals that are born or sprout with the color patterns that best hide it from other preditors are indeed the ones that survive. And in this preditory world survival is a very attractive situation. Also it has been proven that some animals out there in the world are color blind and some do have the ability to see light bands that are invisible to you and i, such ultraviolet light, and this will make the world take on a very different appearance to them.
2006-07-06 13:54:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Oz 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
This has got to be the single dumbest question I have read on Y! Answers. I mean what? That what we define as beautiful could only have been a product of God. The statement that beauty is in the eye of the beholder seems to be highly applicable to this situation. Given a huge collection of things that we observe everyday for example, a street, a car, a bee, a cat, a bird it is up to the individual to discern which of these objects are beautiful. Just because we have a word to define what is beautiful does not mean that these things had to be created by God. What about all of the ugly things in the world, were these created by Satan. Of course not, Satan does not create things, he only destroys. Now, if this question had been asked, look at the complexity of the world I might have understood it, but to say look at the beauty in the world and think "wow it couldn't have been created by any other process" is simply preposterous. If you had something like isn't it amazing that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to form water, only a great mind could have thought of that, then maybe I would be inclined to accept your statement.
2006-07-06 13:41:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Coledude2 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that all of these things came about not at the Big Bang, but by a slow evolution of many millions of years. All of these colorful plant and animals have developed over time to adapt those species to their own specific place and their own specific way of life. I don't think any creator was needed. I know some things are hard to understand and lots of things don't make sense, but come on...look around at the obvious. It's right in front of us, every day. Nature is capable of flattening cities, and nature is capable of growing trees, so nature is certainly capable of creating beautiful birds and flowers. No god needed.
2006-07-06 13:37:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by cay_damay 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Science does not explain why. It simply ansers how.
You can explain how something works regardless of whether you really know how, that's how science works, it is a fancy explanation for something that the masses go along with.
For instance, How does a bird fly?
A long time ago, someone would've side "it flaps its wings", and that would've been right. Now they fancy it up and say something like "because it has hollow bones and moves its wings in a certain way, this allows it to maintain lift in the air"
So the, Why does a bird fly?
The atheist says, ".........because it can"
I would say, "But penguins swim, and they do alright, so it is obviously because God told them to in Genesis 1:20"
Genesis 1:20
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
So plain and simple, atheists don't explain anything they simply observe the world and live in it and attempt to understand or comprehend it. They have know desire to understand "why" because the answer is always God.
2006-07-06 13:37:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's called nature,
I am at a place where I am processing both theories and I am person who believes it when she sees it.
Scientists of all different fields have shown me more proof (TANGIBLE proof) that we have evolved over time.
If there was tangible proof of God and Jesus instead of a book then I might be more inclined to look at this more clearly
But I have no other proof that the bible could be just a lot of stories written a long time ago that have been kept all this time so this means this ALL must be true.
so I am still leaning to the fact that flowers, birds etc is just nature and the Earth evolving.
2006-07-06 14:17:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by tjrj23 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no logic in the idea that a beautiful, complex and diverse environment unequivocally leads to the conclusion that there is a God. I'm not saying that there is no God, just that this is a very weak argument. I believe in God.
What's "obvious" to you is not "obvious" to everyone. There is nothing obvious about the existence of God. I'm glad that you have faith, and you are lucky for it. Count your blessings and realize that part of the diversity includes a very diverse human race, with a variety of beliefs, lifestyles, ways of thinking, logic, philosophies, etc. And also that most people have put a lot of thought into these things and should be respected.
2006-07-06 13:50:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋