Evolution does not fully take into account the impact of water. Life began within water and continues to evolve within water. This means that water is the micro-environment and micro-ecosystem of evolution. Water comprises 9 out 10 of all the molecule in life.
This is how life evolved on
this planet. We have not yet developed the technology to visit other solar systems and observe life there. It may be completely different. For that matter, living creatures may have evolved in other environments than planetary surfaces. We are biased because this carbon-and-water based life on Earth is the only kind we know.
You exhibit the phenomenon I call
human hubris, or what is more commonly known as
anthropocentrism. There's no reason to believe that we are the most important thing in the universe so we know everything.
. . . . a blind model led by the god of chaos.
That's a cute turn of phrase, but could you please translate it into English? This is a science discussion, not a creative writing seminar. Please use terminology that we all understand and define the same way.
How can I abandon creation , since we don't have any explanation , on how life started chemically on this planet , there are some BS from so called expert which they can not explain chemically you can put polymers together. Hand waving I do not accept even the individual have high credential. We don't have a good explanation on how our earth was formed nor what kind of atmosphere was at the beginning.
Actually we have a rather good model for how the earth and the entire solar system were formed. Apparently you dropped out of your university courses before you got that far. It's not the kind of thing you're going to learn by reading the newspaper or watching TV.
Our only major blind spot is about how the universe itself came into existence, and the cosmologists are already working on that. We already know that the universe is an exact balance of matter and antimatter, so there was no actual "creation" of anything, merely an increase in the organization of what was originally nothing and is still, basically, nothing. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are possible, and the Big Bang is probably nothing more than one of those.
But for me Genesis 1 is a fair explanation for evolution and at the end of the creation or call it evolution man was formed and authority was given to oversee the earth and animals ( been superior to animals ) and here we are .
How can you complain about the few missing parts of the scientific model of the universe, yet accept the theological model, which is
all missing parts. Where did God get the matter and energy to build all this? How did he turn it all from chaos to meticulous, detailed organization in just six days? Where did all the waste heat go?
Most importantly,
Where did the god come from? The universe is "everything that exists," and since God exists (in your model, anyway), he is part of the universe. So how did he come into existence? He could not create himself! This is the Fallacy of Recursion and it makes your model utterly ridiculous and unworthy of even a token of respect. It's a fairytale for little children who are not smart enough to see its flaws.
As for atheist . they are a bunch who grow and were nurtured in a God knowing environment and got frustrated that the creator does not appear to them in person m so they got upset, then claim god does not exist.
I was not nurtured in a religious environment. My family have been atheists for three generations. When I was 7 years old a little boy told me about God and all the other bullshit. I thought it was one of those stories children made up and I thought it was very entertaining so I laughed generously. I didn't understand why he didn't appreciate my laughter.
When I told my mother about it she said that many parents tell that story to their children. I reminded her that she had told me about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but when I started asking questions she admitted that these are just stories people tell children for entertainment, then when they get old enough to understand the truth they tell us the truth. Then with great sadness she admitted that there are a lot of adults who still believe the bullshit because their parents never told them the truth.
I reminded her that I figured out that the Tooth Fairy is not real all by myself, and I was just a little kid. How come a grownup couldn't figure out that God is not real, since grownups are much smarter than kids? She couldn't answer that question. This is when I became a cynic. It took me 30 years to get over that. And I'm still not completely over it. It's very difficult for me to respect people who can believe something that is so utterly illogical.
Where did the god come from? Your model does not answer that question, which makes it useless.
On another note, I'm curious as to how other religions and spiritual belief systems view creationism. I'm only speaking from my own vantage point, as it relates to Christianity.
Actually the heads of almost all major religions--Christian as well as others--have made peace with science. The Pope himself has told his flock that the stories in the Bible are supposed to be learned as simplified metaphors for how life works, not literal history lessons. Jesuit universities have been teaching evolution for decades. It's only in the USA that we still have the Religious Redneck Retard Revival.
Have come to your head that the scientist have to have faith in what he is doing , and the faith is based on his experience . The same is with many Christians thsy have faith in what they believe .
No. The scientist's faith is based on
evidence.
I have explained this before, and I'm sure you read it. My dog has been unwaveringly loyal, faithful and kind to me for eight years. This is
evidence. So it is
rational for me to have
faith that he will continue to behave that way.
Religionists have absolutely
zero evidence to back up their beliefs, so they constitute
irrational faith. These are legends that were passed down from the Bronze Age, when there was no science and nobody realized how
anything worked.
The myth of Jesus is more recent, from the Iron Age when the Greeks and Indians had begun to formulate the basic principles of science. But the myth of Jesus appears to be nothing more than a myth. The Romans were meticulous recordkeepers, and if something that fantastic had happened there would be an entire library devoted to all the eyewitness accounts of it. Instead we have
one writing attributed to Josephus, and its authenticity is questionable--and even if it truly was written by Josephus we have no good reason to believe that it wasn't just his imagination at work. Everything else about Jesus was written long after his death, by people who were too young to have been eyewitnesses.
No, my friend. It is you whose faith is unsupported by reason or evidence, not mine. My faith in science is reinforced every day. Your faith in miracles is simply wishful thinking.