Can anyone disprove that there is a God? I have yet to see it.
That's because you can't prove a negative. Just say you can't disprove the existence of an invisible flying elephant, I couldn't disprove the existence of God. So the question isn't can we disprove it but what evidence do we have for it?
Besides, in my opinion, science has no decent explanation for the universe.
I have to disagree, it appears it's done quite a good job at explaining not only the universe but what exists within it. At the very least far better then any religious text.
I know how (supposedly) the Big Bang was the entire universe in a small particle. But where did that come from?
Not exactly a particle, but we don't know. But when we don't know something that doesn't mean we should get to insert anything we like, it just means we have to keep looking for answers. I also doesn't discredit other things we have explained.
This is nothing more then a God of the gaps argument and is a fallacy and a non answer to the question.
And what about other dimensions? What about those? How did they come about? I'd like to know,
I'd like to know as well, that's why I'm not satisfied with non answers to these questions and keep searching for the answers to the "I don't knows".
I just don't get it. SOMETHING had to come from SOMEWHERE. But every time I find out where it came from, I need to find out where that came from, and so on. Where does it end?
Interesting question, would you apply this to God as well if one was shown to exist?
And how does a scale switch to the feathers that allow birds to fly?
Interesting show on this very subject.
Feather Evolution 1of5Feather Evolution 2of5Feather Evolution 3of5Feather Evolution 4of5Feather Evolution 5of5And how does a bird know where to put its feathers when it evolved? Did it just guess right on the first try?
Evolution isn't a conscious decision of the species. So the bird did "decide" to put it's feathers anywhere. Just as you didn't decide where your fingernails are.
And what sort of environment might prompt a creature to leave the ocean?
One possibility was to find a safe place to lay their eggs for the linage that would later become amphibians and lizards. The first species believed to move on land was this giant scorpion, which did so in order to shed it's exoskeleton in safety. And was able to do so due to the way their respiratory system works.
And why haven't people evolved another arm, or an exoskeleton? Those would be nice.
It's not a matter of what one wants but one the species needs.
How does one "try" to evolve? Is that possible?
No it's not possible because evolution doesn't work on individuals nor does it happen to existing species. It works through successive generations on groups. So the closest we could come would be to select for certain traits and breed for those.
Or did it develop a brain first, knowing that it would have more complex organs that would need one to run them?
Skin would have come before a brain. Brains are a development of the nervous system. And again evolution has nothing to do with consciousness.
How would an organism survive without a heart? Or gills?
All you have to do to get an idea for this is to look at sponges or jellyfish.
How would a plant eater evolve into a meat eater without having a mass species starvation first?
Become an omnivore first capable of eating both plants and animals.
Can your heart work without lungs? Can your brain function without your heart? Can your lungs function without your heart? Can your eyes,ears, or mouth function without any of these?
Ours no, but we can look back and find species that can.
Basically, assuming evolution is true, which organ developed first?
Simple single celled organisms.
And where did the materials come from to build such a thing?
Some of it was likely seeded by asteroid bombardment. Some of it may have been around at the formation of the planet. All those materials came from the death of stars prior to the formations of our solar system.
And who combined them to form a cell?
I repeat myself.
"
No one, this is like asking "who makes it rain?", or "who makes earthquakes?" just as you don't need a who for these we don't need a who for the Big Bang." Or in this case we don't need a who to combine the chemicals to form a cell.
And how does one species contain the genes for every species on earth?
It didn't, new genetic information was added later through methods such as gene duplication.
And, also, how does the cell know how to reproduce? Who/what taught it that?
The same way you know how to grow your hair. Yet again not a conscious decision but how that organism functions.
I'd like some answers so I can understand this whole evolution thing better. Because scientists are skeptical, right? They're supposed to question things that seem irrational, correct?
Yes, your more then welcome to ask questions.
Here are other resources for you to look over.
http://www.talkorigins.org/http://www.creationtheory.org/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/And some videos you can watch.
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. CreationismIrrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)How Evolution Works Part 3- DNAHow Evolution Works Part 4- MutationsHow Evolution Works Part 5- Natural SelectionHow Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of EvolutionHow Evolution Works 7: SpeciationEvidence for Evolution, Part IEvidence for Evolution, Part IIEvidence for Evolution, Part IIIEvolution IS a Blind WatchmakerThe Evolution of the FlagellumEvolution of the Bombardier BeetleHow Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part IHow Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made EasyPlease tell me if I'm wrong. I can't tell myself where I'm wrong if I made the mistakes. Also, feel free to show me if I asked any loaded questions, if I did just quote them to show me which ones they were and you won't have to answer them. Feel free to flame, spam, tl;dr this or whatever. Just follow the Golden Rule.
I think the way your going about this is excellent.
The Crusades weren't biblical.
They were very religiously influenced. Regardless of whether they were started by religion or not.
Read the Ten Commandments. Which of those do you disagree with (on a moral basis)?
1, 2, 3, and 4 I see as having nothing to do with morals but kissing Gods backside. 5, 7, and 8 Are very conditional. 10 is pointless and is part of human nature. 6 and 9 I would still say are conditional but less so then 5, 7, and 8.
Also if this God was truly about free will these would be the ten suggestions rather then commandments.
I'm a christian and i think being a christian isn't a religion its a way of life
It's a religion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionNot all... but a lot of people I know who claim to be Christian go on mission trips and give to charity all the time.
At the same time they are using these hard times to try and recruit people to their religion. They have also spread bad advice such as not using condoms which has lead to epidemics in impoverished locations.
If religion wasn't a problem in a place like the middle east, Israel would still be having bad relations with all of the other countries just because they don't like Israel.
And the biggest reason why they don't like each other is because of the different religious beliefs.
Even Jesus' disciples had doubts, so don't feel bad if you do.
They were able to supposedly see all these magic tricks happening right in front of their faces. Why am I required to just believe based on at best second hand accounts from unknown people, with no way of knowing if it's true or not, and goes again other facts?
Eventually, through God and educated priests/pastors/etc, you will find the answers to your doubts.
Unfortunately those answers tend to be hollow.
Actually I heard somewhere that circumcision has a few health benefits, and it is non-harmful. (In that it's usually done young and so not remembered)
It has about as much health benefits as cutting off the tip of your fingers prevents you from getting a nail infection. I wouldn't call the removal of a large mass of nerves harmless.
The Circumcision Debate (Mirror) Basically the health benefits are made up bs.
