GODS CREATION versus PHYSICAL EVOLUTION?

Question

is creation a myth, a fable?

If god really did create the universe,.... what was the formula he used to create its first particle-- (pre quark.)
I cant seem to find it in the bible,...... theres plenty of miracles in there,.... but no formula.

Answer 1

good luck, what if the universe has always been around and was never really created.

Answer 2

I think you have to back away from that issue and ask the larger question - Is there a God? As an atheist, I view belief in a supernatural power as unreasonable. It is a mystery to me why, 300 years after the Renaissance, a vast majority do not believe in evolution, and still cling to the belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

Of course, the great draw of religion is comfort, both during trying times and the irrational belief that someone is inferior because they believe something different than another.

Take a look at Sam Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation” for more insight. A much shorter version of some of the themes in that book can be found in Sam Harris’ “Atheist Manifesto,” which you can Google. One his main themes is that atheism is not a philosophy or a doctrine, but just a refusal to deny the obvious.

Answer 3

We don't know.

That's why God created Small Particle Phsycists.

Otherwise they're be no need for them.

WHY do we need to know about QUARKS

What PURPOSE does it serve

Will it feed the hungry in Africa

Will it replace Oil as a primary fuel source.

If creation is so bogus, then WAIT for nature to make your XBOX 360, eh

Answer 4

The Bible is not intended to be a blueprint construction manual with step by step instructions. It is a moral code of how to live your life. The more I know of science, the more I believe in a Creator. It is too complex to have been an accident.

Answer 5

There was no equation when God created things except in his own way....science still can not disprove a lot of things that are there and have no explanations....so maybe everyone has to dig a bit deeper.

Answer 6

Hmmm.. I wonder what formula evolutionists use to create that same 'particle' from nothing. Can't find that in the doco either.

Cheers :-)

Answer 7

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 = God.

Which is the correct answer?

Answer 8

--THIS TEXT seems to connect well with how God ignited the universe by his holy spirit,(active force) as Gen. 1:2 expresses in the preparing of the already established earth. This text is in reference to the celestial bodies & not only the creating but the maintaining of them:

(Isaiah 40:25-26) “. . .. 26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC ENERGY(my caps), he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing. . .”

--Einsteins' E=mc2(relativity of energy & matter) seems to agree with what Isaiah wrote 2500 years ago without any scientific knowledge, but by inspiration of the most unique kind.

--As to a theory on the RNA being the catalyst to life Please note--ESPECIALLY THE CONCLUSION by the "apostles of RNA"---

*** ct p. 48 From “the RNA World” or Another World? ***

In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. IS THIS THEORY SOUND?

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It DOES NOT EXPLAIN(my caps) the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains."

--The FORMULA that Isaiah propounded seems logical enough, if indeed we recognize that indeed there is a DYNAMIC PERSONALITY behing the "abundance of dynamic energy."

Answer 9

Simple ,the same formula he used to create you.the same formula used in tucking brain in your skull.the same formula used in making you grow into adulthood

Answer 10

I'm intelligent design