Do you believe in God? Simple question

[bu villain]

a) I am saying that order is evidence of design. Not absolute proof. I don't believe things can be proven, but I do believe that evidence can be provided in order to present a logical conclusion. Much like in a courtroom.

I disagree about it being evidence of design although it certainly doesn't disprove design. It seems completely neutral to me, not supporting either side (design or lack of design). The only reason to attribute it to design I can see is that you want it to be. Btw, I'm not sure what your paragraph on Christ has to do with this topic.

b) The rules of our universe provide order. Not ducks in a single file line, but identifiable order. For instance, we can identify a galaxy, we can identify gravity, light, etc etc because these things follow properties of order and do not function outside of them. If the observations of such things were not ordered we could not identify them and study them in the manner in which we do...relying on the observations and testimony of previous observers to direct our own and to aid in hypothesizing.

I wasn't debating that there is order in the universe although I'm sure some people would like to debate that depending on how you define order. Either way I see no need to go into this since my real point was that your assumption of (a) was invalid.

c) This and other things give EVIDENCE of a consciousness directing our universe. Not just because of their existence, but also because logically and philosophically, some of the things in our universe can not be given an origin in the theories we have for creation of our universe.

If you wan't to provide other evidence that's fine but I do not believe you have shown order is evidence for design. What you are doing with your last statement is creating a God of gaps. We don't know how the universe began, so instead of just saying "We don't know" you say it was God. Btw, there are several theories for how the universe began (but that's not the point).

I was a biology major in college for a while. One of the things that I have a problem with is the idea of survival.

If life on our planet responds to the natural selection process then we need to be able to account for the emotional attachment as demonstrated by the human species.

Emotional attachment can be very helpful for survival. For example, how long do you think humans would last if mothers didn't care about their children.

For instance. If our goals are to pass along our own DNA, then why is it our that our morality defines things like infidelity, murder, stealing etc wrong. These are all actions that promote the survival of the species and if we are acting against them, and we are, we are demonstrating that this evolutionary process is not really guiding our actions. If this is the case then what is?

I would argue that those things are not good for our survival. Killing humans is obviously not good for the survival of humans (I don't think that needs to much explaining). Stealing and infidelity certainly negatively affect social cohesion. Having more stable societies is certainly a survival advantage and many many other species have their own rules for their societies (bees, ants, apes, wolves, etc.)

Then we look at the chromosomes in our DNA. If these are developing then we should be able to identify them in lesser value. For instance if we started off with a single chromosome, then what was its function, then what was the function of two, then 3, then four, etc. Biology does not give into account this problem, instead we postulate based on leaps in a very very broken evolutionary chain. In fact, I think that as I studied evolution, I had more problems with the missing components than anything else. We filled those missing components with non evidential hypothesis' and they became the rule of thought without evidence to support them. For that reason, (lack of solid evidence) evolution (natural selection, darwinian) remains only a theory which has yet to be proven, but has been marketed as fact.

This is basically irreducable complexity which once again could be a whole other thread but in response to how one chromosome becomes two it would be through mutation. Remember evolution doesn't have a goal and then build something to get there. I'm surprised you said you were a biology major because you say evolution is "only a theory" but anyone who is well versed in science terminology knows that a theory in science is not the same as a hypothesis. Quite the opposite in fact. I doubt you would say the theory of gravity is "only a theory". The word theory is used because in science, unlike religion, NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN, only things that have never been disproven.

then we come to the demonstrations as stated by lab professors. Every one of these, that I have seen have been catalyzed by some process. If we have to add a catalyst, then how is it natural. We are not demonstrating nature if we have to add in some sort of protein or we have to manipulate the cell to cause change.

I would suspect waiting for the right mutation to occur would not be a good use of your time.

This is the extremely watered down version. But yes this would probably need to be another conversation.

and again, I don't think anything can be proven, yet I do have evidence that leads me to believe that a reasonable conclusion to our universe is a conscious creator. And the evidence for one, is much stronger than the evidence against one. Now my christian faith is based on that evidence as well as the evidence that I feel makes a very strong case for the person of Christ.

Yeah I probably indulged too much on the evolution topic myself. In the end of course you have to believe in whatever you believe. Belief is not a choice but that doesn't mean it can't change. I can't choose to believe in God because I simply don't see the evidence. No matter how hard I try, I can't make myself believe in something I don't see the evidence for.