The evidence for God is not just in creation;but the evidence for God is in the consistentcy of creation.Like you dont find people that have heads where their butt should be,or genitals where their arms should be.Everything is very consistent and seem to go by pretty much the same blue print.And there's still room for variation within that standard blue print.
Randomness-proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
c. constructed or applied without regularity
One thing that I've heard from the bigbang to evolution&natural selection;is that everything is random;just by observing the consistentcy&uniform structure of the universe,it's obvious that everything is not random&leans towards the idea of a intelligent creator that took the time to make the universe&all within it.
Who agrees with this idea&who disagrees?Explain reasoning please
2007-03-03 07:46:44 · 14 answers · asked by Maurice H 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Evolution do not state that "everything is random."
In fact, the Theory of Evolution claims it took billions of years to create the diversity of life on Earth; and modern cosmological theory explains that the universe has stayed together for billions of years.
If animals and people could not reproduce fairly accurately, then nothing would survive. Not that the act of reproduction is perfect. There are mutations (with a very few being beneficial.) And there are birth defects and genetic disorders.
But for the most part, the universe goes on pretty well, just as Evolution, Geology, and Astrophysics say it should.
2007-03-05 08:54:27 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As a matter of fact, eyeballing "creation" is the first logical proof that there is no such thing as an omnipotent creator being. All things arise due to causes and conditions, are changing and impermanent. All things are suffering until you cultivate a mind that's free of the grasping and attachments, aversions and such that cause suffering etc.
To break it all down would take more space than is allotted in here... tellya what, to make this more simple, you study Buddhist philosophy and refute that, point by point and I'll listen. Fair warning though Maurice... nobody's been able to do it in thousands of years... not really.
_()_
2007-03-03 07:55:20 · answer #2 · answered by vinslave 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing in the Universe is "random". Everything is a chain of cause and effect events. One thing causes another which in turn causes another which in turn causes another. Sure, nobody knows where it all started but maybe one day we will find out and I doubt it's God. Anyway, things like evolution aren't random. Animals develop skills they need to better adapt to survive.
2007-03-04 10:04:14 · answer #3 · answered by Dido 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not proof. Just an opinion.
Ask a scientist about 'chaos theory'. This may explain some of the universe to you better than trying to prove a fictional tale like creationism.
2007-03-03 07:50:17 · answer #4 · answered by Skyhawk 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there is NO evidence of god's being real simply because he isn't. You can make up all the reasons you want, but that still isn't proof. consistancy is normal since sexual reproduction is needed ofr most species to reproduce, and onlu the most adaptable to the wurroundings survive to do so. Those would be consistant in form
2007-03-03 07:55:48 · answer #5 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The consistency of "Creation" is evidence against, not for, God. If "Creation" were inconsistent, it would suggest interference by some power outside of "Creation": this is the basis of the idea that miracles imply the supernatural. In contrast, the consistency of "Creation" implies that the universe is self-sufficient, natural, cohesive, etc.
2007-03-03 07:50:06 · answer #6 · answered by Rob Diamond 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Is it merely a reaction it truly is innate, or the innate theory it truly is caused via a stimulus? Does the toddler have an innate theory to suckle, or is the reaction lacking the idea of the suckling and that which become being suckled? i do not imagine the youngster can communicate his concepts, so possibly there is that large difference there, between concepts that could and could no longer be communicated. the first problem, to me continues to be a puzzle, "a thanks to tell apart an innate theory from an innate reaction?" Than there is the historic previous or the construct of the innate theory or innate reaction, which continues to be something to be tackled via embryologists and evolutionary biologists.
2016-11-27 19:18:24 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this was so lacking that it's almost not worth even replying to, " you dont find people that have heads where their butt should be,or genitals where their arms should be" what planet do you come from??? the one I live on has malformed retarded people with plenty of genetic defects being born all the time, the simple fact is that you don't even see the worst cases because they don't survive to birth
2007-03-03 07:55:10 · answer #8 · answered by Nick F 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The standard blueprint is a result of millions of years evolution encoded into the genome. What you have just detailed is proof of evolution, not of your God.
Besides, even if you could prove that the universe has one creator...what makes you think it'd be YOUR God?
2007-03-03 07:53:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Heres consistency for you 99% of all species on earth that ever existed are now extinct Sounds pretty perfect to me
2007-03-03 07:57:14 · answer #10 · answered by hate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋