Minecraft Forums

"Also, there is a difference between a baseless belief and a scientific fact." True enough, as far as it goes.

"God is a belief with no actual evidence or prove as to his existence." That depends. If you assume God does not exist (as most, but not quite all, scientists do), then of course you don't find any divine activity in the world. But if you study the world without assuming atheism, "Let there be Light" sounds an awful lot like an ancient description of the Big Bang, and Jesus fulfilled an awful lot of prophecies (which can be proven to have been made before the fact).

"Evolution on the other hand has been proven in patterns in biodiversity, fossil records and shared DNA sequences and traits which are more similar in organisms sharing a recent common ancestor." You could very well be right that Evolution is well proven; it doesn't really matter one way or the other to Christianity; not if God can issue prophecies, and so on. But really, I look at the same sets of data, and come to a different conclusion. Explain the Cambrian Explosion to me. Also, Human DNA is apparently ~50% the same as Banana DNA. (I consider Human DNA being ~70% the same as Chicken DNA to be only natural, considering what cowards we (myself all to often included) are.)

"Its even been demonstrated, mainly in the mutation of viruses resulting in new strains resistant to antibiotics." Viruses are technically non-living, but even there, how many examples can you come up with of a virus actually mutating a new ability, as opposed to merely losing whatever ability that originally allowed the antibiotic to attack it? Maybe quite a few, I don't know. But I haven't heard of many.

At the end of the day, I'll require Evolution to prove itself before I accept it, but I don't really care that much one way or another. It can't explain the initial origin of life (prebiotic soup theory was abandoned years ago), and even if science manages to explain everything that has ever happened in the world (which I rather doubt; Jesus's resurrection looks very miraculous), it rests on several philosophical presuppositions (which are actually false if something like the Matrix is true; fortunately, I doubt the Matrix, but still... how would we know? except possibly philosophy?).

Christianity sits of the foundation of mankind being descended from one man who was created in the image of God. Death entered the world as a consequence of man's actions (specifically the first man and woman eating the forbidden fruit). Also, after finishing His creation, God declared it 'very good'.
This is entirely contradictory with the evolutionary concept of mankind's origin as a result of a process of death, struggle, survival of the fittest, and gradual improvement of lower lifeforms. For starters, it puts a whole load of death, disease, and suffering before the first sin, as well as before the world was declared 'very good'. Also by removing the literal first sin of the literal first two people from which all are literally descended, the Gospel of Christ dying for all makes no sense. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." That doesn't work at all if we are just the lucky highly-evolved decendents of some grunting creature that was also the ancestor of all the other primates. Plus in Mark 10:6 Jesus himself stated, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Within an evolutionary framework, male and female started a lot closer to the end than the beginning, and a lot closer to the end if you're only referring to humans. Actually Jesus did mean humans since he was actually giving an explanation of the origins of marriage and divorce (basically saying that God only allowed for the law to permit divorce because of the hardness of people's hearts, not because He wants divorce to occur). In fact, without the Biblical foundation of marriage that Jesus is referring to here, the whole concept falls apart, which is why so many people in the modern world want to redefine marriage their own way: their entire worldview is built on foundations that do not all fit with Biblical foundations. Plus the entire point of evolution is to remove the need for God to be relevant.
(Actually plenty of evolutionists have said outright that evolution negates all meaning of the Christian gospel. It's a pity that more Christians don't realise this.)

Anyhow, you did make some very good points, such as antibiotic resistance always being a downhill change in terms of only being a destruction of existing features (or a chance in frequency of existing features) rather than creation of anything novel. And yeah, the similarity of DNA in different organisms is to be expected, since we're built of the same components (which is why we can eat a chicken, and why we have similar diets to monkeys!), plus a lot of the numbers (some people have claimed humans have 98% similarity to chimps) are based on imprecise methods that miss a lot of differences, plus even if we did only have 2% difference, the human genome is just over 3 billion base pairs so 2% of that is a lot!

Oh come now; the Sumerians, whose ancient tablets were the basis for Moses altered version of Genesis in the Christian Bible, tells us exactly how we were created. If we are going on the authority of how old a document is, then the Sumerians have everyone and every religion on the planet beat. :wink.gif: Especially when you can look at hard (stone tablets) evidence that Moses just rewrote the original accounts of our creation from Sumeria in a way that served his purposes at the time.

He was raised by the pharaoh and trained by the High Priests which had access to all those writings at that time. Moses himself was recorded as being an Egyptian Priest by Greek historian Strabo, an Egyptian Priest who was dissatisfied with the established institutions in Egypt and led a group of people away from Egypt to start a new culture with all that he had learned.