I wrote this in response to a question of whether God created man or man created the world. However another poster asked to have this as it's own topic to see where it goes. My response compares of the world we live in, with the cold barrenness of outer space. The conclusion is the world must be created as well as protected. It ends with a question if you have any better hypothesis I'd like to hear it.
___________________________________________

Here are a few thoughts to consider. Look at our anatomy. How our body works. From a baby in the womb to the age of 105. You do this for humans and it's fascinating. Do the same for any other creature and their body throughout their life and it's just as inspiring. The way life is engineered is amazing. More then that look at ecosystems. How we've come to an understanding that animals and plants fit a harmony in their environment, where they all fit together. Specialization for hunting, for running, for hiding. For living around only that environment and not being suited well for different ecosystems. Life itself is engineered in a way that fits together.

The diversity and complexity of life is amazing, but for the last thought, look at the Earth and at outer space. Why life has become so abundant and diverse on earth while in a desert of life in space should shake anyone who's observant on the reality we live in. The question isn't just how did life begin on earth, and become so diverse. The question is also why is life still here, and not a desert lifeless rock like everywhere else we've been able to see in space. (So far the hunt for other life is still ongoing. Haven't found anything, and expecially haven't found abundant life like we have on earth.)

If you have a better explanation for life then that we were created and protected, this tiny speck called Earth, then I'd like to hear the hypothesis. So far everything I've heard falls short.

Man couldn't have created the world because the world had to come before man. Man would have needed somewhere to stand:).

Dear NNS,

The idea that many gods were man made was put forward
thousands of years ago. Jewish prophets said this
about all foreign gods whose images were worshipped by
the nations around them. Greek philosophers said this
about popular gods who were worshipped in many local
communities.

The former made this criticism in the name of ONE
universal God and the latter on the basis of an
impersonal conception of the divine.

There were continuing, at times merging echoes of these
views during the following centuries among several
Roman thinkers.

After that it was Christian writers, mainly building on a
Jewish foundation but partly influenced by Greek and
Roman ideas who further developed this critique.

Today, few citizens of modern societies would totally
deny the possibility of some higher power in the
universe, some supernatural, transcendental realm that
lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience,
and in this fundamental sense as I stated in another
discussion, religion is probably here to stay as is the
belief that God created man.

I found this discussion spectacularly informative...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

Its basically on topic in that it explains the failings of Darwin's theory and therefore puts the issue of evolution very much back on the table.

Now disproving (or dicrediting) Darwinism isn't the same as proving or reinstating the deity, but its a step down that path.

If you're slightly interested in the topic I urge that you watch the discussion. I know its long but well worth the effort.

Of course, Darwinism is just a theory but has become an article of faith to modern Westerners, much like AGW. So the reaction to views such as those in the video has been outrage and attempts to have some of the professors sacked. In a better age, the reaction would have been to mount counter-arguments but that now seems to be a lost art among the so-called progressives.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Life did not begin on earth - biology did (at least we so think).
Outer space (so we think) is barren of biological forms, but this does not necessarily make it devoid of life.

Life occurs when consciousness is focused on spatial objects, but these objects need not be biological organisms. We could say that the spatial objects are enlivened by consciousness, yet consciousness itself is not located in space.

If there is indeed a God then what on earth did he create stupid people for ?

Individual,

Nobody knows what God's plan is for one's
life. We all suffer for what we've been
given in one way or another.

However, as Benjamin Franklin once said:

" We're all born ignorant but one must work
hard to remain stupid."

Foxy,
Sadly, Billions are spent on the dumbing-down !

To ttbn,

Sorry for my mis-type. I meant to say whether God made man or man made God. Don't know why I put it the other way. :) your right though, man couldn't have made the world. We'd have no place to stand to do it.

To Individual.

My point isn't an explanation why people are here, any more then why dogs, whales, and kangaroos are here. I don't know why God wanted to create us outside of the points I read in the bible. Because He loves us, or because He wanted us to look after the earth, or potentially another reason as well? That's for Him to know. The point I made is an observation that we are here, as well as dogs, whales, kangaroos, and a whole lot of other living creatures on a level of life that is amazing, complex, and in the scope of the universe too rare to ignore and pass off that abundant and diverse life just "happens." When looking at the world as a whole picture without including God in the picture, just doesn't make sense.

The current explanations for how the earth was formed, how life started in it, and how life changed to become this world of diversity and abundance doesn't make sense. Things don't fall together that way. Instead if life would happen spontaneously like that there's no reason life would still be here on earth instead of falling apart in the fist century that life appeared on earth.

To Mhaze.

Interesting discussion on YouTube. I've a little left to watch. My thoughts are that I don't think evolution is a great as it's claimed, even before watching the video. There are too many holes to apply evolution to the beginning of a species or the beginning of life on earth. And when evolution is applied to anything outside of biology it's pure rubbish and philosophy that just sounds like science. Where there's actual holes in the theory of change in micro or macro evolution can be debated as much as people want. However it doesn't stand as a creditable scientific stance for the beginning of life on earth.

To Yuyutsu.

For the sake of brevity, let's agree to this topic to being about biological life, as it's the only recognized life that can be easily observed.

To Foxy.

The question of whether God made man or man created God is a conundrum to those who don't know that God exists.

It's not a conundrum of whether God made man or not, or man made God. If God is real then He made man regardless if mankind recognizes that or not. Regardless if God is real, mankind has made up idols to worship. If God is worshiped among those idols, it neither makes God less real nor those idols less fake.

"Did God make man, or man make God?" is a false dichotomy.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«whether God created man or man created the world.»

I am wary of the verb "created", because it suggests a physical, human-like, action. In some sense it would indeed be true that God created man, but to prevent a misunderstanding I rather phrase it: "man is made of God".

Man did not create the world. What man did create, are concepts, including the concept of God. Atheists believe that man created God because they think of God as only a concept, which He is not.

«If you have a better explanation for life then that we were created and protected»

I am no expert on the biological technicalities, but you seem to mix up yourself with the biological body of yours which is enlivened by you. You are not created, nor is there anything in existence to protect you from, nor can you be destroyed. It is only your body which was created, is presently protected and will eventually be destroyed. By whom? By God.

In Truth, you are not a body - You are God, the creator, protector and destroyer of life and all.

To Yuyutsu.

My point is that the world is a creation of God. (Mankind included). Any other explanation falls short for the reasons I've given. Due to the stability of life on earth still being here; the diversity and complexity of life on earth; and the rarity that life happens as seen in a comparison between earth and outer space.

Again for the brevity and focus of this conversation, I mean biological life when I speak about the term life.

As for the word choice of created. I stand by my choice of words. God created us. God made us. I see no issue in the word choice as a Christian, nor do I see an issue with my the word choices choice due to the observations I've given in this discussion.

From the bible it says God made mankind. It also has a more personal verse telling a prophet that God knitted that person and knew who they were and their path and future while they were in their mother's womb. The word created is the correct word to use. (On this point on created being the correct term or if it makes it seem that we are separate from God, perhaps we should acknowledge that we disagree on the underlying point of whether we are God or whether we are separate from God).

Even without bringing spiritual understandings into the mix. There's no current understanding of how the world was formed to overcome the obstacles in those theories of the duribility of life on earth, the diversity of life on earth, and the contrast between life on earth and the scarcity of life outside of earth. Only by acknowledging that God is real, do the theories (of how we think life formed on earth), have a foundation to lean against and dismiss the obstacles given in this topic.

Dear NNS,

Our connection to God is life itself.

Spirituality is the answer
to global hatred. It is an inner fire, a mystical
sustenance that feed our souls. As I stated earlier
I'm not out to convert the beliefs of others. For
me religion is personal and I have found that life
without a conscious awareness of God is difficult.
I follow a religion because that is, theologically,
where I find Him.

cont'd ...

The fact the life exists means that God came
before man.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Your argument unfortunately mostly takes the form of a 'God of the Gaps'. Because you feel you don't heave an alternative feasible argument the God must have done it?

As the gaps have lessened so has your God. Perhaps keeping him/her in the spiritual realm rather than the physical or scientific one would serve you better.

You see there is no evidence, except for an unfounded belief in our own exceptionaism so to speak, that life originated on Earth as opposed to anywhere else in the universe. The surface of the moon is a good example of the various chunks of material flying around our universe all capable of carrying life forms.

Even if life did spontaneously burst forth on this planet there is absolutely not reason why it can't have happened on any of the many billions of planets that are out there.

As to a designer at work ask him/her why it the pouch of the Koala facing backwards? Science says this is because they are evolved from Wombats who have the same configuration. That is because they are burrowing animals. Pretty awkward for a tree dwelling cousin though.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

The second word of the bible, the verb 'bara' that is usually translated as "created", is only ever attributed to God, never to a human or an animal.

In English, though, it is valid to say: "the dog created such a mess".

Language is designed to speak about finite things that are subject to the physical laws. It is helpless in attempting to describe the infinite. According to Newton, when you DO something, an equal force is applied to the doer in the opposite direction. So when a hammer hits a nail, the hammer is also pushed backwards, but because the hammer is significantly heavier, the impact on it is small. But what if the hammer was of infinite weight, thus also had an infinite momentum when hitting the nail? Newton's laws are then broken, they are not meant for such scenarios.

Had God created anything in the ordinary meaning of the word, then there would be a reverse impact affecting God, but can the immutable be affected? If you create a piece of music, then you turn from a wannabe-composer into a composer, but has God during Genesis turned from a wannabe-creator into a creator? Is God subject to time? Both Hinduism and the Jewish Kabbalah speak about God constantly creating and destroying an infinite number of worlds: that number being infinite, God could not even be changed from "the creator of 256 worlds" into "the creator of 257 worlds"!

So when you say "God created mankind" (or when Foxy says "God came before man"), I agree with reservations about the language. However, when you say "God created/made us", I disagree, not because someone/something else created/made us, but rather because we (like God and unlike our human body) were never created to begin with.

On the topic, I believe that those who choose to deny God can always find clever alternate explanations to the durability of life. Refute one and they will find another. I could do the same, but I choose not to.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Regarding your quote of the beautiful verse, Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations":

The original verb is 'etsorcha', which is mostly translated as "formed you", assuming the verb-root Y-TS-R. It could also be construed of the root TS-R-R, to bundle or to pack, thus "before I packed you up in a belly/womb". It could also be construed of the root H-TS-R, to narrow, to limit, even to besiege, so "before I narrowed you down into a womb".

In any case, the word is not "created". Even with the conservative reading of "formed you", this just means that beforehand you had no form and afterwards you had one. This is always the case: before birth we are formless, in the middle we have a form and after death we are formless again. http://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2/verse/28

To SteelERedux.

I don't know why some people fight so hard against the possibility of God existing. Instead of at least acknowledging that God might exist, (due to what's said earlier in the topic), the position you put yourself in is that you don't know the answer, but refuse to accept that God is the answer.

I don't know about life on other planets. No one does. It hasn't been found. That's my point about the emptiness of life in space. It is so rare that nothing has been found yet. The point is about the rarity of life outside of earth, not whether it exists or not outside of earth.

Once again if there is a better explanation for the world we live in I hope to hear it.

Dear NNS,

There is much evidence that traditional religion
is being eroded; this in itself is hardly surprising,
because social change alters all institutions over
time.

There is little evidence however, that public belief
in some super-natural, transcendent reality is
disappearing. Recent polls show that many know their
astrological "sign"and that many also believe that
their lives are governed by the stars.

Many believe in one or more of such practices as
fortune-telling, palmistry, numerology, tarot-card
readings, and even seances with the dead. Many people
believe in reincarnation.

All these beliefs and practices run directly contrary
to the teachings of the established churches (except
perhaps for re-incarnation). Yet they seem to thrive.

Many people also adhere to the "invisible" or "silent"
religion, acknowledging a supreme but unknowable force
in the universe.

It is I guess all a matter of choice - in what one
chooses to believe. Or not.

Dear Foxy,

It's all about how people order their belief systems and this can be different depending on time, space and number.

Dear NNS,

You ask;

“I don't know why some people fight so hard against the possibility of God existing.”

I'm afraid that is projection on your part. You certainly fight hard enough against the probability that he doesn't exist, which is of course your prerogative, as is evidenced by how much your posting on this topic will attest.

I do not completely discount the possibility that God exists, that would be silly, even if I do consider there to be scant evidence that he/she does.

The fact that you have to go to God as a requirement to fill gaps in human understanding rather than presenting him/her as a manifestly evident entity speaks volumes.

Once you admit you don't know about life on other planets as you have done, and that no one else does either, you can't then claim there is an emptiness of life in space, or that it is so rare. Abundant life may well be a feature of planets within the Goldilocks Zone. Without having visited a single other planet within this zone we can say nothing definitive at all.

But think about how prideful you are being to consider that the whole of not only the observable universe but the vast untold billions of galaxies have been created just for our species. Why do you think that is even a remote possibility?

Look you are perfectly welcome to create your own God as most do, even if it means plagiarising other's versions as most do. But just as a Helios-centric world view was so resisted by the Church for so long, there will be a time when religious folk accept we are spinning around a rather ordinary sun, out on an outer arm of a fairly ordinary galaxy and nurturing the mental health challenges which come along with such a realisation I contend shall continue to be a significant role for our religions, let's hope they are up for it.

I thought David Hume had put the question of God to rest about 250 years ago. Surley I'm not the only one on OLO to have done Philosophy 101 at uni?

To Foxy. You said:

"It is I guess all a matter of choice - in what one
chooses to believe. Or not."

Should the search for what's real and what's true be tossed aside then? Two great things to search for, for anyone, are 1) what's true; and 2) what's right. In all of our beliefs, philosophies, and everything else these two elements should filter out of our beliefs the things that are wrong. Tossing them either because they are untrue, misconception or lies; or tossing them because they are not right and cause more harm then anything else.

That said I get the impression that you do not approve of my stance on the matter of how the world is. That, or you disapprove my sharing my views on this matter. Is it out of disagreement? Or out of feeling that I am forcing my views on others? Think about this before you reply. Why does discussing about God publicly create this sense of animosity? Why should the search for God only be a private one instead of publicly discussed and encouraged? I greatly disagree with the stance that faith should be a hidden secret, instead of a bursting joy. It should be both private and public.

(Continued)

(Continued)

You already do believe in God, and agree with my position that God came first, and created mankind. Why rob anyone else of this realization instead of challenge them away from false arguments (such as the false dichotomy of "did God make man, or did man make God"), or encourage them in the richness that comes from finding God?

This is what I am pointing out in this topic. God is real, he made the world as it is. Not because the bible says so, or because any other texts say the same. But because based on our own observations a world like our own doesn't just happen any more then a wrist watch left in a forest is confused with being a natural part of that forest. The complex nature of a watch shows that it is man made. Does not the same thing looking at the rich complex life on earth in the context of a hostile background in space convey the same thing? That our world is crafted, designed to fit together, engineered and built by God?

In the same stance I also give a challenge. Show me a better understanding of the world if it can be explained how it is without God involved in it.

To SteeleRedux

Can life be traced back to raw material deposited on earth to make up DNA and RNA? Our planet just happens to allow this raw material to flourish and start the process of life on earth? Why would that last even if hypothetically it is thought to have happened?

Is our diversity spun by starting as single cell organisms (note that even those are very complex and would be hard to reach from the raw material stage), to then spread through evolutionary changes to make up the diversity that we now have? Leaps and bounds of change. Evolution can be debated for if it is justified within the scope of its field. Which is to study the differences and similarities between species. What it can not do is build a bridge to vastly different species, nor to theorize life coming from a single simple life form. At that stage it just turns into philosophy. No science backing it up. A sad fact of evolution as a whole. It has become a philosophy and a concept to base other theories on, instead of a field where more is actually learned. To much of the field has nothing to do with scientific advancement or understanding.

Is our world still around after several extinction level calamities have occurred on earth, because "life finds a way?" Why is it so rare that we can't find life anywhere outside of earth then?

All of these views on life and their influence on theories for how the world formed and became what we have today are just philosophical stances with no real merit. In fact unfortunately most of these theories get in each other's way and ignore scientific understanding as a whole in order to hold up their conclusions.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Why put a fuss about God creating the world. At least there's evidence that He exists. All of the scientific theories for why Earth has life on it are missing the smoking gun of actual evidence. They are philosophy. But God is real. If you don't believe me that's fine. It doesn't matter. What you can offer though is a better hypothesis or explanation then what I've come across so far.

To Mr. Opinion.

Is the question of God only a philosphical question? Too bad He can be found then isn't it. Makes the philosophical questioning seem silly.

Regarding the world we live in. Do you have a better explaination of the world we live in then that it was created?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

If you are asking if we need to use philosophy to answer questions that cannot be answered by science then the answer is YES.

Dear NNS,

Have you heard of the field of abiogenesis?

“Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.”

“ earliest life on Earth existed more than 3.5 billion years ago, the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. The earliest physical evidence so far found consists of microfossils in the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt of Northern Quebec, in "banded iron formation" rocks at least 3.77 billion and possibly 4.28 billion years old. This finding suggested that there was almost instant development of life after oceans were formed. The structure of the microbes was noted to be similar to bacteria found near hydrothermal vents in the modern era, and provided support for the hypothesis that abiogenesis began near hydrothermal vents.”

“Also noteworthy is biogenic graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks from southwestern Greenland and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone from Western Australia. Evidence of early life in rocks from Akilia Island, near the Isua supracrustal belt in southwestern Greenland, dating to 3.7 billion years ago have shown biogenic carbon isotopes. In other parts of the Isua supracrustal belt, graphite inclusions trapped within garnet crystals are connected to the other elements of life: oxygen, nitrogen, and possibly phosphorus in the form of phosphate, providing further evidence for life 3.7 billion years ago. At Strelley Pool, in the Pilbararegion of Western Australia, compelling evidence of early life was found in pyrite-bearing sandstone in a fossilized beach, that showed rounded tubular cells that oxidized sulfur by photosynthesis in the absence of oxygen. Further research on zircons from Western Australia in 2015 suggested that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago.”
Wikipedia

Complex organic molecules are being discovered in space.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

Your God of the gaps is sitting on a pin head yet you still persevere?

Dear Mr Opinion,

Hume was a Scotsman and all that entails but let's run with him for a moment.

I put it to you that NNS 'senses' his God. It may not be in the way Hume would describe senses, but it is certainly more than an idea.

He 'feels' there must be something to fill his existential 'bereftments' so to speak. Why do you think Hume was antagonistic to such notions?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Life on Earth started when a certain type of molecule developed the capacity to alter itself. And as they say the rest is evolution.

Dear NNS,

As I tried to explain to you on my earlier discussion
on religion. To me my beliefs are personal. And
I'm not out to either educate or try to convert any
one else. This is probably as a result of people
having preached to much at me as I was growing up.
So much so that they turned me away. However
I went on my own journey of discovery (and I'm still
on that road) and I found that as I explained - for me
life without a conscious awarenss of God was difficult.

You obviously like to discuss this subject with other
people and you want to make them "see the light" so
to speak. That's fine by me. I don't want to.

cont'd ...

And I certainly don't resent or disapprove of
you doing it.

I wish you well.

'Life on Earth started when a certain type of molecule developed the capacity to alter itself. And as they say the rest is evolution.'

Oh so there are people groups less evolved than us. No wonder the scientist believed the aboriginals were the missing link. Quite a racist belief system you have Mr Opinion.

Runner,

Once again you show yourself to be a small minded racist, turgid with judgement, bigoted, toxic and a disgrace to the faith you profess but do not follow in any real sense of the word.

Please stop projecting your poison on to another, it is all yours, every last nasty drop of it.

To have your interjection including such a banal, base and baseless, slur into a halfway decent conversation is totally unwelcome.

Go away.

I take it you share Mr Opinions racist belief system Steelie. I know you luv a topic devoid of truth. I'm going nowhere!

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«Life on Earth started when a certain type of molecule developed the capacity to alter itself. And as they say the rest is evolution.»

Perhaps, but why are you addressing this to me?

I couldn't care less how biological life on earth started, like a prisoner couldn't care less what exact alloy his chains are made of, who made them, how when and where. All that matters to me is how to become free of this bondage of addiction to biological life-forms and the various sufferings and limitations that emerge from this bondage.

In Hinduism, the creator of this world and all life therein is named Brahma.
Very few worship him! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Wx3LQ0n6s

To Mr. Opinion.

Let me put it differently. God can be found. It no longer becomes a philosophical matter at that point. If I could find God as a kid, then so can you. So can anyone. On the other hand, if you look for God and don't find Him it still doesn't concern philosophical conundrums and what if questions all the way down. Just a practical didn't find God, or did find God. I'm of the stance that if I can find Him, so can you or anyone else find Him.

Though the importance of finding God and searching for God dwarfs the topic here about how the world came to be, I was hoping to explore that topic as well. I can do both if you want, but I'm not a scholar nor a prophet. Keep that in mind if you have a question or a challenge that I don't have an answer to, or can't perform a sign or something for you. The truth is encouraging though that if someone like me can find God, then you don't have to be a scholar to do so, nor do you have to be perfect either. That's one thing I can offer plenty of is encouragement for the search. I can also offer what I've found to be true while in the search for God, and what seems to be off the wall. I don't think all ideas are equal or all from God, making it important to search for what's true, while distinguishing what's possible and what isn't. So I can also offer what I've come across in those aspects as well.

To SteeleRedux.

Abiogenesis? Hmmm. Sounds interesting. Just a quick Google search shows that it's still missing the mark to bridge complex molecules to living organisms. But it's at least a start. That's the sort of thing I'm looking for in this conversation. Other explanations.

As for the God of the gaps criticism. I'll tell you this to set the record straight. I already know that God exists. With that in mind there are a few running theories about how the world came to be, while acknowledging that God is real. I would separate the theories into two broad categories.

1) The "Windup the universe" theories place God as a creator but then just leaves after setting things in motion. Letting the universe run smoothly and naturally happening ever sense. This set of perspectives can range from God creating the earth, and then leaving, to God creating the universe and letting it be after that. Anything in-between when God created the world (or the universe) and present day is thought to be like a clock working on it's own after being wound up. Depending on the theory of how far back to credit to God before the natural mechanics take place can make some in this perspective come to the conclusion that the Earth was made through natural phenomenon and that life started through natural phenomenon.

2). The active God perspective. As the description suggests, God didn't just leave, but still holds an active influence in the world around us as well as an active role of setting the world in place.

(Continued)

I'm puzzled why God creates us & then leaves us at the mercy of those he created with a sinister streak & then tells us to just have faith & all will be goo

According to the Hebrew scriptural text God created, all chemistry in the universe, the beginning of life and the human mind. The rest he gave the chemistry of the Earth and water and air the power to bring forth all living things. The fact of the human mind is evidence God is a mind of order in the universe, disregard of or disobedience too brings chaos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfQ_HJl9l0g

Dear individual,

It's because God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-caring. PS Only joking of course!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I directed my comment to you simply because you raised a question about Life on page 1. Remember? or has your dementia finally got to you.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

On page 1 I pointed out to Not_Now.Soon that life and biology are two quite different things. I did not ask anything there, how less so about the origins of biology.

To SteeleRedux.

Sorry for the dely in the response. Here's the second half of what I meant to write to ya.

....continued from before......

The way I know God is real has determined for me that God is indeed still active in the world. This is not theory to fill in the gaps, nor is it reaching for an explanation with God, when I don't have an explanation of my own. If I don't have an explanation, I'm ok to say I don't know, and only hold what the possibilities are in those cases.

However when looking at the world we live in, there is no way I can buy the line that we are here by natural chance elements alone. I've given the reasons for this in the observations I gave in the start of this conversation. We are too complex a world, and complex a creature to have just happened through random chances. The numbers just don't add up to that conclusion. If there's merit to abiogenesis and we can discover a means to make complex molecules come together and create living creatures, then I might reconsider the natural phenomenon approach to how earth came to be. Until then though the bridge from nonliving to living is still not found and not crossed. There are no explanations for how we have life on earth except philosophies and hypothesis. No gaps are being filled (to use your terminology) to show how it's done.

To Individul.

Regarding your question. Ask God Himself. Try it, it's called prayer. You might be suprised if you get some insight on the matter, regardless if you recognize it to be from God or not. Or you might not get any answer or insight. Sometimes answers remain hidden, at least for a while.

My best guess is that those with a sinister streak are a reminder for us. To seek God, and to be reminded of the state of the world because of our sins. To remind us our need for God. As well as keep us from being to proud in ourselves.

Just my best guess. Ask Him yourself. See what you find.

Just my best guess. Ask Him yourself. See what you find.
Not_Now.Soon,
Ok, I'll ask him now with you as my witness.
Dear God, could you please stop humans from being stupid, greedy, nasty & just guide them to be considerate of each other !

Dear NNS,

You write; “The way I know God is real has determined for me that God is indeed still active in the world.”

And I can just as easily assert that 'I know God is not real because there is no evidence of him/her being active in the world'.

Why aren't both as valid as the other.

There is a demonstrable path from the very beginnings of life on this planet to what we have today. DNA science has given evolutionary theory a robustness that makes it virtually irrefutable.

Anyway just for the record, are you a young earth creationist or just an intelligent design aficionado?

You're right, Steele, the lack of evidence, apart from someone's honest belief, is pretty conclusive ....

Cheers,

Joe

Religious institutions, as such are not
the only arbiters of religious experience.
They do not own the Truth, for the Truth cannot
be owned. Nor should they think they hold some
franchise on our spiritual life. They are
consultants and frameworks, but they are not God
Himself. We should not confuse the path with the
destination.

Spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical sustenance
that feed our souls.

Few citizens of modern societies however would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies
beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience.

To Individual.

What you've asked is a good prayer to ask for. But there is no point to make a show for it like you have. Say it in private when it is just between you and God. You do not need a witness for that. In the same way if a person prays in front of everyone to show how righteous they look it will result in nothing from that prayer, so it's the same when you pray to show publicly that there is no answer. Do it between you and God, or don't do it at all. You need no witnesses nor do you need to tell me or anyone else that you did pray.

To SteeleRedux.

A witness has more input to say, then an assertion from someone who sees nothing and refuses to look. This is the case in all things whether it's a witness in a crime, or a witness at a festival and a concert. If you say there is no evidence and refuse to look, then that is indeed a worthless assertion. On that note I've said something different. I've found God, and if I can find Him you can too.

Jesus says something once that's really profound about finding God. Once His disciples asked why Jesus wasn't making His ministry more public for everyone to see. Jesus's reply is that His message is not for the world because the world is not looking for Him.

In order to find God, you have to actually look for Him.

Regarding evolution. DNA has helped on predictions, such as trying to look for markers to predict your heritage, or to predict your health currently and in the future. That's as far as it goes. It doesn't help with the theories of species changes that are involved in evolutionary theory. It especially doesn't help with combining evolution with abiogenesis. In both cases DNA does not go far enough to bridge non living material to evolve into living organisms. Nor does it prove that different species hold a common ancestor because of similarities. All those similarities could be from being in the same environment with the same elements and atoms present. (Both species being on earth).

(Continued)

(Continued)

To measure this point, consider why mankind shares 50% of our DNA with bananas. Is this because bananas and humans share an ancestor so long ago the earth isn't old enough for that amount of evolutionary change? Or do they share 50% of their DNA with us because we are part of the same environment and bananas make 50% of the same proteins as mankind does? Think about this and which is more rational. If the theory of similar ancestors doesn't fit with bananas, then it doesn't guarantee the same for us and any other species that we are closer to. (Though that conclusion is worth considering with some species it definitely isn't irrefutable. And especially doesn't point to evolutionary theories on the beginning of life on earth to single cell organisms).

SteeleRedux. You asked if I am a young earth creationist, or just acknowledge the intelligent design. For that, I say what difference does it make if I see the world as younger or much older. What I think on that matter makes no difference. I'm not a scholar nor a scientist to comment on either, nor am I a witness on when or how the world came to be. My opinion won't change how old the world is, nor will it add insight to convince you that my opinion is correct. However my observations that the earth and the universe as a whole are a design instead of random chance is my grounding point.

Nonetheless, here is my opinion on the matter of the age of the earth. God could have made the earth in less time then recorded in the bible if that was His intent, or He could have made the earth with each day described being a much longer period. Both are possible for Him, therefore it's not something I get bogged down with.