Creationism VS Evolution

How trivial does Con think creation itself really is? Con cannot simply throw out names and act like he knows how those chemicals and organisms were formed. Its not very NEW knowledge that humans are created out of the same material as stars. Its not even a new concept that ALL matter is essentially atoms and protons. Just because we find a common molecule does not mean we are ancestrally related. This is like saying ...since we are all made of water, we are also part of the ocean. Though you may want to argue evolution makes that true, it is actually meaningless to say. When we were less evolved and only ocean...we were not anything...so how could we be from the ocean? This is the key point. Where do WE (mankind) come from? Where does lur language come from? Our morality? Where does it come from??????? We are not the ocean. We are not plants. We are not animals. We are distinct human beings, with an uncanny abilty to understand and learn incredible things. Far beyond any other life form known on the planet at least. The combustion of star dust and macro evolutionary biology combined does not even come close to tackeling this age old question. There is simply not enough data or no meaningful way to pull such data. Con wants to say that eventually, science will find the answer. And I dont necessarily doubt that, but the answer that science finds may very well be God. And Con has not demonstrated why this could not be the case. Instead Con has given us a science lesson on star formation and pharmaceuticals. All he has done is give us names of the hormones that allow us to feel the emotion known as "love." Oxytocin = love is a fallacy. Much of Cons argument is the same kind of fallacy. Essentially Con purports more knowledge than is justifiably reasonable. Yes,'science has come along way. And we have learned an immense deal about life, the stars, and the mind. But any honest scientist would admit that we havent yet begun to scratch the surface. Yet Con wants to set forth an entirely imaginary hypothesis, so as to make his case more "imaginable". Here its critical and important to note ; what is imaginable is not what is likely. What is imaginable is not even necessarily what is true. In fact. Throughour history the UNIMAGINABLE has always held dominion over the findings of science. Even as Con admits, science is self adjusting and self correcting. Its ALWAYS wrong. A work in progress. Everytime it thinks it has the answer an unimagined discovery leads to a modification of the "theory" and progress of mankind towards the "truth". For example, no scientist honestly imagined that the stars would be accelerating away fromeach other. At one point, no scientist even imagined that humans and animals carried a genetic code. No one even could have imagined that we were made of the same molecules of star dust , or that we can affect matter across the universe using quantum mechanics. Further, every major lesson in history was unimaginable. At least to me. Shucks. The point is that the truth is often unimagined. The fact that everything Con imagined is based off of something some other scientist already imagined, I would be inclined to say "sorry Con, i do not believe you possess knowledge on the beginning of matter and life." And last i checked, neither did a single scientist. Again, To clarify, Evolution ,big bang, star dust to organism. all of it can be true. But it does not mean it is the WHOLE truth. There still may be some other unimagined force that we can call "God" who has set all things in motion. This God being beyond time and space , being the creator of it, is neither bound by it. Some people refer to this as a God of the gaps argument, but in perspective, if one correctly applied the definiton of God, they would not have presupposed that God was a bearded manin he sky with a magical tool box of creation and throws lightning bolts when angry. If someone says God is the a deity like Zeus, then that God has been falsified. But even before Zeus, people believed in the Abrhamic God of the Christian Bible. Interesting. This means. There were two different types of ppl. All through out time. Those who believed God was like Zeus(a deity) , Those who believed God was like Yahweh (the creator of life and matter). If we lump all those who believe God to be the same, then we are unable to define God in any sensible way. We are unable to know which God the believer believes in. Only in such case does the God of gaps apply. When the skeptic is ignorant to the believers notion of God. If the notion of God is yahweh version, then God of the Gaps does not apply. There isnt anything in the bible that specifies God did not use evolution or the big bang to create matter and life. Infact, even the pope says so. The bible is full of stories, but one needs to be careful in interpretting them. It is foolish to think the biblical narratives are entirely accurate by scientific means. The bible states in the beginning was the "word" and constantly refers to "the word" of God. Many churches establishments (actually i think almost ALL) exploit the ignorance of the masses and quickly assert the 66book bible itself is the inerrant "word of God." No where in the bible does it state that King James or constantine was authorized to dictate what was the word of God and what was not. Actually, the bible clearly states, in the beginning was the "word and that word was with God and he was God." I come back to the question of where does out language come from? Words. I then need to emphasize the fact that Con stated "i dont know where it comes from.but im sure its not God!" Does Con even know what God is? How does Con know what God can do, and how he does it, if he has not defined God? Does Con think (nevermind he doesnt believe God exists) that God is supposed to be like Zeus or Yahweh? Clearly Con doesnt think. Con doesnt believe and doesnt need to think. Well, if Con did a little thinking, maybe he would actually believe. Because thinking about it lets you conclude logiically that: If we say God is like Zeus. Then we would have evidence of his being visible and we would see him get angry every time Con blasphemes. Clearly this God can be falsified by evolution. If we say God is like Yahweh, then things get a bit more complicated. Yahweh is invisible. He also somehow lives in and knows all human hearts. And he has fashioned the universe and everything in it by uttering "words." Such as, "let there be light." Then how does evolution falsify this God? Why was it not possible for God to utter "Let man evolve!" According to biblical teachings the christian God actually fits so perfectly well with science that the religion has grown and stood practically uncontested for 2000 years or more. Sure science is only taking roots, but still science has not yet been able to contradict Yahweh. Though they try. Accoridng to teachings Yahweh is eternal = beyond time= a day for Yahweh could be 1 billion human days. Yahweh is immaterial = beyond space = he does not need to be seen to exist (remember quantum mechanics) Yahweh is Holy = righteous = explainging the origin of morality. Yahweh is the Word = language = explaining the origin of human linguistic capabilities Man is made in Yahweh's Image = explaining the purpose of evolution. Yahweh created all living things , trees first, then fish , mammals and finally man. = explaining process of evolution. Yahweh resides within everyone = the kingdom of heaven is within you, = Immanuel = you are star dust. Given such qualities of Yahweh (which is not really God's name, but the supposed first "sounds" created during the creating lf the universe.), it could be imagined, that God being a timeless mind, willed into existence all matter and life and with the purpose of creating Man. God would set the bing bang and evolution into motion , with the preknowledge that eveything would evolve more or less according to presequnced design. Or DNA. This "creating" set forth from God, eventually manifested into our cosmos, but God being the creator of it matter from nothing, would not exist within physical Time and space and therefore would be unable to detach Himself from everything that which he created. He would be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. ubiquitous and invisible. And in such state, he would be freely be able to affect all areas of life and the course of evolution without being detected. In such a scenario, everything would appear to be coincidence, and yet that is the reality in which we live.