There's no suggestion of that. Not from the Big Bang, or from anything.
That's not even the point I'm trying to make.
I'm simply saying that just because something isn't self-creating doesn't make the cause a deity, including the Universe.
Your only reason for why it should be a...
It's the most widely accepted interpretation. It's the interpretation that has the most applications.
And you're using things within this universe to give an analogy as to why everything needs a cause, to support your deity. I gave you an example of the contrary.
It can happen with cars...
Quantum Mechanics would disagree with that.
In the quantum world, things happen probabilistically, not because of a cause. Evolutionary Biology isn't the only scientific field that clashes with your religion.
If you really want to attack science to support your world view, you shouldn't...
Why does it have to be an eternal cause? Why can't it just be a cause?
And a cause doesn't necessarily have to mean creator.
He asked you why the Universe needs a creator, which is rather specific. Not why it simply needs a cause. All you've done was explain why it may need to be a cause...
No one is driving the Earth around the Sun, or the Sun through the Galaxy.
Most of the things in nature were not made by humans or any animal.
If you compare the things we know for sure were made by a conscious entity(things ranging from bird-nests to human technology), it's greatly...
Honestly I prefer to consider apes as a subset of monkeys, particularly Old World Monkeys. This would include humans of course. You're all monkeys. Get over it.
That's how science works. We can't make advancements without trial and error.
The Wright brothers didn't make a flying machine on their first try. They had to keep building machines and testing them until finally, they made the right machine.
What I mean is, why would it have to mean both can't happen? i.e. aliens zapped bacteria with some kind of mutation ray, but humans and chimps still share a common ancestor. I don't see how it takes away from evolution. It could just mean that other non-evolutionary biological processes can also...
But does it have to be divine? Why can't it be the work of aliens or something? And if it were aliens, it still wouldn't take away from what life does without sentient intervention(whether it's aliens or a god), which would be Evolution as we currently know it.
As I said before in the quote, I don't think it would necessarily be evidence against Evolution. It wouldn't at all be for it either as that's not how Evolution works.
If we did observe bacteria spontaneously producing a human I'd look at it as a new unrelated phenomenon. In other words, just...
I don't call myself an Atheists but I don't really label myself at all. I don't believe in a god, but I don't think it's a complete impossibility.
But I agree with Evolution and I don't think that and the concept of god simply existing have much relation, strictly speaking.
Now the gods of...
Sure. The wish bones, feet and feathers of theropod dinosaurs look "similar" to modern birds.
You need to look into fossils more then. Even if you reject evolution, you can still see that fossils of animals from earlier times have simpler features.
Therapsids are similar to mammals, but...
Not to the extant that you think, because I'm aware of the similarities that go beyond looks. You're not.
Generally speaking, it's true. Occasionally, parts can get lost, but on the grander scale, organisms are more basic earlier in time.
Proof?
No. The first organism doesn't have...
There isn't one. Whatever the elephant evolved from, the elephant is still a variation of that thing.
Organisms become more basic as you go back in time.
The common ancestor of an elephant and a flower is the basal eukaryote. Both are still a variation of an eukaryote.
Let's not...