It is absurd to use the word "REASON" to describe Atheism.

[uscitizen]

What that evidence proves is the first cell that was needed for life could not form without the cell being formed first because that is the only place amino acids and proteins can form is inside a cell.

So you have two choices cells always existed and we know that is not the case or someone designed it. That is evidence of God.

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you do not know how life happened to come about so God did it?
That is proof?
just wow...

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you neglect all your work and just tell yourself that God did it? How sad.

No I love science,but I could see first hand that everything I was taught was total speculation that was not supported by the evidence, Wound up with a great Job that took me away from that particular field.

Now I am semi retired mostly due to a stroke but I am into precious metals now and business is good.

 

[uscitizen]

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you neglect all your work and just tell yourself that God did it? How sad.

No I love science,but I could see first hand that everything I was taught was total speculation that was not supported by the evidence, Wound up with a great Job that took me away from that particular field.

Now I am semi retired mostly due to a stroke but I am into precious metals now and business is good.

And how is religion not total speculation and is certainly not supported by evidence?

sounds like you had a death scare and got religion to me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you do not know how life happened to come about so God did it?
That is proof?
just wow...

No I have no doubt life could not come about without a designer. How could a cell form without a designer ? it's not possible.

Do you not understand ? you had to have a fully formed cell to produce other cells. Sugar coat it if you must ,and believe as you wish, but it's not possible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you neglect all your work and just tell yourself that God did it? How sad.

No I love science,but I could see first hand that everything I was taught was total speculation that was not supported by the evidence, Wound up with a great Job that took me away from that particular field.

Now I am semi retired mostly due to a stroke but I am into precious metals now and business is good.

And how is religion not total speculation and is certainly not supported by evidence?

sounds like you had a death scare and got religion to me.

I am no fan of organized religion I am a fan of God and his word. It is a reasonable assumption to believe that life could have only come from a designer after looking at the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you neglect all your work and just tell yourself that God did it? How sad.

No I love science,but I could see first hand that everything I was taught was total speculation that was not supported by the evidence, Wound up with a great Job that took me away from that particular field.

Now I am semi retired mostly due to a stroke but I am into precious metals now and business is good.

And how is religion not total speculation and is certainly not supported by evidence?

sounds like you had a death scare and got religion to me.

The speculation I saw in the science community is not backed by the evidence that is the difference.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good night all.

 

[JMJames]

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you do not know how life happened to come about so God did it?
That is proof?
just wow...

I have to agree with this. As aggressive as it sounds, the sentiment is very true.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you do not know how life happened to come about so God did it?
That is proof?
just wow...

I have to agree with this. As aggressive as it sounds, the sentiment is very true.

If either of you can explain away the evidence I put forth please do it I am willing to listen. Give me a theory that is backed by the evidence and I will look at it. I am not closed minded to the science community great things have come from science the origins question is one of the most important questions if you wish to believe everything came about naturally.

 

[JMJames]

So you do not know how life happened to come about so God did it?
That is proof?
just wow...

I have to agree with this. As aggressive as it sounds, the sentiment is very true.

If either of you can explain away the evidence I put forth please do it I am willing to listen. Give me a theory that is backed by the evidence and I will look at it. I am not closed minded to the science community great things have come from science the origins question is one of the most important questions if you wish to believe everything came about naturally.

The thing of it is, the idea that God is behind all of it is very unfounded. It can't be proved. If it can't be proved, it can't be disproved. We have no need to disprove the superstitious beliefs on how the life, earth and the universe came to be. They are fairy tales to keep frail minds occupied.

 

[sealybobo]

It makes me very frustrated when activists hijack the word “reason” to describe the belief that there is definitely no higher power and that everything they we see around us is the the product of random chance.

The theories of evolution and big bang are just “theories”. Evolution is based on random mutations. The big bang theory does not explain how the ingredients for the big bang were created. Did something come from nothing? Did life arise from inanimate objects by chance and it can’t be duplicated on purpose in a laboratory? These theories seem silly to me.

There are many, many theories about how God created the universe and life aside from the satirical theory that you mention. But my main belief is that God knows things that we are not capable of understanding.

Did you know that if a monkey sat at a typewriter for the entire life of the universe (about 14 billion years) and typed random letters continuously, he would never write a novel by random chance. IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that the trillions of cells in our body that make up complicated organs that all work together came to be from random mutations over a period of several hundred million years. Although we witness many species going extinct, no one has ever witnessed the creation of a new species. The only thing scientists have observed are mutations within a species.

IMHO the most reasonable theory is that a power beyond our understanding created all that we see.

I remember that series on tv of what was life like when all life was undersea. Before there were land roaming creatures. How crazy things evolved and the dominant species survived and the small creatures had to adapt to survive and then fast forward to the dionosaurs and if they still existed we may not have thrived. And how a few discoveries helped us evolve faster. Or how Dogs helped us out in the beginning and without them we wouldn't be what we are today. Wouldn't have been able to master the frozen north poll like the eskemos did without the dog.

Oh it is all so perfect and beautiful and amazing that no doubt there is something magnificiently bigger than all of us. I believe in God for sure. But I don't buy into Christianity, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc. What does that make me? I believe in God but I don't think any of us has a clue what God means. I just believe there is a God. I just don't buy man made religion. Am I an athiest, agnostic? What? Spiritual?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have to agree with this. As aggressive as it sounds, the sentiment is very true.

If either of you can explain away the evidence I put forth please do it I am willing to listen. Give me a theory that is backed by the evidence and I will look at it. I am not closed minded to the science community great things have come from science the origins question is one of the most important questions if you wish to believe everything came about naturally.

The thing of it is, the idea that God is behind all of it is very unfounded. It can't be proved. If it can't be proved, it can't be disproved. We have no need to disprove the superstitious beliefs on how the life, earth and the universe came to be. They are fairy tales to keep frail minds occupied.

Frail minds ? Do you realize how much harder it is to be a person of faith trying to be the best person of your ability to be a good person obeying the laws and putting others first,then it is to just not care and do whatever,whenever you want not having to answer to anyone ?

Frail minds

Have you ever sat down and pondered it out about how much faith it takes to believe as you do ?

Do you have a theory as to the origins of life or not ? I can't prove or disprove God but I can reason from the evidence.

I don't think you realize how strong this evidence is I pointed out. What I presented is a scientific fact !

 

[JMJames]

If either of you can explain away the evidence I put forth please do it I am willing to listen. Give me a theory that is backed by the evidence and I will look at it. I am not closed minded to the science community great things have come from science the origins question is one of the most important questions if you wish to believe everything came about naturally.

The thing of it is, the idea that God is behind all of it is very unfounded. It can't be proved. If it can't be proved, it can't be disproved. We have no need to disprove the superstitious beliefs on how the life, earth and the universe came to be. They are fairy tales to keep frail minds occupied.

Frail minds ? Do you realize how much harder it is to be a person of faith trying to be the best person of your ability to be a good person obeying the laws and putting others first,then it is to just not care and do whatever,whenever you want not having to answer to anyone ?

Frail minds

Have you ever sat down and pondered it out about how much faith it takes to believe as you do ?

Do you have a theory as to the origins of life or not ? I can't prove or disprove God but I can reason from the evidence.

I don't think you realize how strong this evidence is I pointed out. What I presented is a scientific fact !

Reason from the evidence? That's rich. Saying that God did it is just too easy. How pathetic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Have a good night all.

Drop dead, and take your superstitions with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The thing of it is, the idea that God is behind all of it is very unfounded. It can't be proved. If it can't be proved, it can't be disproved. We have no need to disprove the superstitious beliefs on how the life, earth and the universe came to be. They are fairy tales to keep frail minds occupied.

Frail minds ? Do you realize how much harder it is to be a person of faith trying to be the best person of your ability to be a good person obeying the laws and putting others first,then it is to just not care and do whatever,whenever you want not having to answer to anyone ?

Frail minds

Have you ever sat down and pondered it out about how much faith it takes to believe as you do ?

Do you have a theory as to the origins of life or not ? I can't prove or disprove God but I can reason from the evidence.

I don't think you realize how strong this evidence is I pointed out. What I presented is a scientific fact !

Reason from the evidence? That's rich. Saying that God did it is just too easy. How pathetic.

You really don't understand the scientific method do you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good night all.

Drop dead, and take your superstitions with you.

Yeah the truth sometimes brings out frustrations.

I am curious why so many on your side really do get upset when I discuss these issues with them. Where does the anger come from ?

That has always been true when people try to discuss doctrines of religion and politics rationally.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The thing of it is, the idea that God is behind all of it is very unfounded. It can't be proved. If it can't be proved, it can't be disproved. We have no need to disprove the superstitious beliefs on how the life, earth and the universe came to be. They are fairy tales to keep frail minds occupied.

Frail minds ? Do you realize how much harder it is to be a person of faith trying to be the best person of your ability to be a good person obeying the laws and putting others first,then it is to just not care and do whatever,whenever you want not having to answer to anyone ?

Frail minds

Have you ever sat down and pondered it out about how much faith it takes to believe as you do ?

Do you have a theory as to the origins of life or not ? I can't prove or disprove God but I can reason from the evidence.

I don't think you realize how strong this evidence is I pointed out. What I presented is a scientific fact !

Reason from the evidence? That's rich. Saying that God did it is just too easy. How pathetic.

Famous scientists believed there is a God and God did it.





Belief in God


Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.


Rich Deem
1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6.Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
7.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
8.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
9.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
10.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
11.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
12.Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
13.Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Oh do visit the webpage and watch the video of DR.Collins

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

 

[Toro]

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

Where?

Here so you don't have to look for it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

If you wish to cite the miller and urey experiment which is the argument most evolutionist try to use as proof of amino acids forming naturally in nature.But let me show you why the experiment failed.

1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey, the first experiment to test the Oparin Haldane theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth.

Problems with the experiment.

1. They hypothesized that prebiotic chemicals could evolve naturally in the enviornment and form the first cell which further evolved to life as we know it today. They did not prove this at all. All that was formed was amino acids and a few other molecules. A cell did not form.

2. The results were conducted by intelligent humans and they were trying to show that a natural unintelligent process could form these prebiotic chemcals that would make up a cell.

3. They assumed what the enviornment was like 3.8 billion years ago without having a clue what it was like. They used circular reasoning and produced an enviornment like ours today. One of the things they didn't account for was raw oxygen that would decompose any molecules being formed in nature.

4. The biggest blow to the test was that as stated earlier only left handed amino acids work with life and forming proteins. The test produced both the left and right amino acids.

I put this as simple as I could.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. Science's inability to fully explain nature does not mean God exists, just like science's inability to describe God does not mean God doesn't exist. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that God exists because of man's inability to fully describe the universe.

 

[JMJames]

Oh fantastic, you have a list. Quite an impressive one at that. Tell me, of what use is religious superstition in the advancement of our understanding of the universe? Other than an easy go-to answer when we give up searching.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where?



That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

If you wish to cite the miller and urey experiment which is the argument most evolutionist try to use as proof of amino acids forming naturally in nature.But let me show you why the experiment failed.

1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey, the first experiment to test the Oparin Haldane theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth.

Problems with the experiment.

1. They hypothesized that prebiotic chemicals could evolve naturally in the enviornment and form the first cell which further evolved to life as we know it today. They did not prove this at all. All that was formed was amino acids and a few other molecules. A cell did not form.

2. The results were conducted by intelligent humans and they were trying to show that a natural unintelligent process could form these prebiotic chemcals that would make up a cell.

3. They assumed what the enviornment was like 3.8 billion years ago without having a clue what it was like. They used circular reasoning and produced an enviornment like ours today. One of the things they didn't account for was raw oxygen that would decompose any molecules being formed in nature.

4. The biggest blow to the test was that as stated earlier only left handed amino acids work with life and forming proteins. The test produced both the left and right amino acids.

I put this as simple as I could.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. Science's inability to fully explain nature does not mean God exists, just like science's inability to describe God does not mean God doesn't exist. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that God exists because of man's inability to fully describe the universe.

I am still waiting for answers to my questions. If you are admitting ignorance on the origins question why are you so against there being a creator ? That is the only rational assumption.

How can some humans can not see the evidence of design and order in our world but believe everything originated from chaos ?