Login

Join for Free!
119235 members


God vs Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Well

Postby Linn » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:31 pm

HopeHasFailed wrote:in the bible the world is only a few thousand years old,


This is an icorrect assumption of those who have not taken the time to study the scriptures, no where does it state an age.

As far as the original question, I believe that God created the universe and the earth was not inhabited until life began to slowly be formed by God exactly in the order that scietitist say it happened, in full harmony with the bible.

I do not believe that anything evolved on its own accord.

I do believe in speciation. :)
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby want2know » Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:41 am

Sorry somehow this site doesn't allow me to post link until I have at least 5 posts. In anycase this was posted only a few minutes ago in one of google blogs.
Last edited by want2know on Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby want2know » Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:50 am

Another one

"What then is the simplest state and does it exist? It is plausible that the most simplest form no longer exists. But I believe a more likely proposition would be that we are unable to accurately observe it rather than we do not coexist with it. The closest scientific theory we have to explain the simplest state is the string theory and the likes, which try to explain the makeup of the subatomic particles (what the electrons, neutrons and protons are made up of, which makes the atoms). Well we could propose that the simplest form we can deduce down to is actually energy but then we assume everything started from energy, which many scientists do, when E=MC^2 is not only one way formula (this formula proves that energy and matter, everything that atoms and particles makeup, are interchangeable - atomic bomb). In either case, what is important here is that however simple we make out the universe, at one point or another evolution no longer does the job to explain where that simplest point evolved from. No matter what we make of it we can never explain the beginning when all we have is a theory about one state evolving to another. So in this sense evolution is not a contradicting theory to that which tries to explain the beginning, creation. So the next time lets try to explore the complexity and see if evolution, which proposes all existence from simple to complex, does in fact "create" complexity out of simplicity."
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am


Postby kotoreru » Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:03 am

At no point does Evolutionary theory state that all things move naturally from simple to complex. Simplicity often just 'works'.

Similarly, it never suggests why things are here to begin with; only what happened to life/molecules/whatever along its path to what we see today.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Postby want2know » Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:16 pm

At no point does Evolutionary theory state that all things move naturally from simple to complex. Simplicity often just 'works'.

So dose evolution allow the possibilities that we humans could have coexisted with organism from the beginning?

Similarly, it never suggests why things are here to begin with; only what happened to life/molecules/whatever along its path to what we see today.

So you are in agreement that evolution and creation are not contradicting theory.
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby mith » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:12 pm

Evolution says nothing about creation of earth universe etc, and neither does say anything about divine acts populating the earth with the species we see today.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby kotoreru » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:16 pm

No of course Evolution doesnt suggest that Humans could have coexisted with organisms 'from the beginning'. Humans have been around for a ridiculously small amount of time compared to life itself.

And I wont answer the last part because an awful lot of Creationist view is based on circular arguments and drawing people into them...
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

even scientists need God

Postby mattw » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:59 pm

Everyone is searching for God. Without God life is just wasted time. Many scientists believe in evolution and God. Some people abandon God because they have been offended so badly that they cannot believe any caring God could have allowed something so terrible to happen to some good person close to them. But science doesn't need to deny God, only take care of the tasks and great works of science. :D
mattw
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:39 pm

Postby robertkernodle » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:04 pm

.
. . . evolution is an incorrect 'THEORY' made by the human race to neglect God


An equally valid claim might be made that evolution is a correct THEORY made by the human race to EXPLAIN God in greater detail.


I want your argument about why you believe that human existence is a freak accident or if we were created for a purpose


I find many freak accidents quite beautiful. Why would you automatically grant them such low status to begin with? Your concept of accident (as I believe many people's concepts of accident) is unduely negative.

A creative universe simply can be creative.... as a first principle, with no centralized mind. It simply is what it is, and what it is... leads to sentient life-form, ensemblic, self-organizing, self-realizing parts of itself.

Purpose is already what it is by virtue of the fact that the universe is what it is - CREATIVE, SELF-ORGANIZING.

If you wish to call this purpose 'GOD', then I suppose it's okay with me. If you wish to posit a centralized intelligence modeled anthropocentrically on the cognition of human beings, then I think you impose too shallow a conception on a universe of much greater infinite depth.

Robert Kernodle
robertkernodle
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm

Postby want2know » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:52 pm

A creative universe simply can be creative.... as a first principle, with no centralized mind. It simply is what it is, and what it is... leads to sentient life-form, ensemblic, self-organizing, self-realizing parts of itself.


But the universe is not "creative" as you say. We as one of its created things think that it is. The very design that has been guiding everything from the very beginning has always been and, as far as I can tell, will always be, thus it is not creative. All the creative power is already in the universe. Would Van Gogh be any less creative if he didn't paint The Starry Night?
[/quote]
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby want2know » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:55 pm

Another

Lets move on. We know that subatomic particles are the ingredients of atoms, and atoms of molecules, and molecules of compounds, and compounds of organisms. As they progress to more complex state there are greater possibilities by exponential factors. This brings us to the consideration of what the most complex state could be and if there is such a thing as the state of most complexity, if we can observe it.

Since we are constantly evolving, the rational of evolution would be that we have yet to see the state of most complexity and evolution by definition eliminates the possibility of evolution ever stopping. Evolution doesn't know the future, it only evolves based on the circumstantial factors that occur within and around itself. It merely reacts to the present on top of what's been accumulated by the past sequence of present. Evolution is not the designer but it is an outcome from a design. But if we were to disagree and propose that evolution will ultimately reach the most complex state, or whatever you would want to call it, that no longer can or needs to evolve then we would have to consent that this universe has a design, specific purpose, which all points to that state or point, the most complex and no longer evolving state. But accepting this would mean that everything is guided by intelligent design, the very antithesis of evolution (at least for those who believe evolution is possible without intelligent design).
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby want2know » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:16 pm

Here is the link:

http://www.worldtogod.com
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests