if not evolution

[Syriusly]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

I think that the question is better asked: if not evolution- then what?

What alternative theory do you have that better fits the known facts for life on earth than the theory of evolution?

 

[Hollie]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

No doubt that the universe is a pretty inhospitable environment for life. If the Sahara desert represents all the matter in the universe, all the life in the universe would be represented by a single grain of sand. That's how rare life is.

So if these conditions are what are required for beings that know and create to arise, why blame God at all for how inhospitable the universe is for the living.

Either the gods are the creators of all or not. There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

 

[Hollie]

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

I personally don't believe in a god--as most others do
I believe evolution as the cause of humankind

You believe or know?

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. A hypothesis is given theory status when either by experiment or many observations (and observations of that hypothesis's predictions) prove to be true. Any hypothesis that attains theory status must also meet some other criteria. It must be able to make testable predictions, and it must be falsifiable. That is, observation or experiment could show that it can be shown to be false (or true).

Now, evolution has a great amount of observational evidence to support it. It also makes predictions (for example, that bacteria and insects can become resistant to anti-biotics or certain insecticides), and these predictions have been observed. Evolution also makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil records, and for the most part these have proven true. The observations support the theory. The Cambrian explosion was explained by a slight modification to the theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which again is supported by the evidence. Not only that, but DNA structures common to different life forms is highly suggestive of the truth of evolution, as evolution would predict exactly that this should be true, and observation and study of DNA structures thus far confirm that prediction.

Ok but how did the first living cell come about?

I don't pretend that I know.
However. the inclusion of abiogenesis in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of evolutionary science. Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of a god or gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware; it does not matter.

Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

 

[harmonica]

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

You believe or know?

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. A hypothesis is given theory status when either by experiment or many observations (and observations of that hypothesis's predictions) prove to be true. Any hypothesis that attains theory status must also meet some other criteria. It must be able to make testable predictions, and it must be falsifiable. That is, observation or experiment could show that it can be shown to be false (or true).

Now, evolution has a great amount of observational evidence to support it. It also makes predictions (for example, that bacteria and insects can become resistant to anti-biotics or certain insecticides), and these predictions have been observed. Evolution also makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil records, and for the most part these have proven true. The observations support the theory. The Cambrian explosion was explained by a slight modification to the theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which again is supported by the evidence. Not only that, but DNA structures common to different life forms is highly suggestive of the truth of evolution, as evolution would predict exactly that this should be true, and observation and study of DNA structures thus far confirm that prediction.

Ok but how did the first living cell come about?

I don't pretend that I know.
However. the inclusion of abiogenesis in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of evolutionary science. Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of a god or gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware; it does not matter.

Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

and the ''creation'' of man was a 'diversion' of one species into another which is evolution
evolution ''created'' man

 

[sakinago]

Truthfully, I don't believe in creationism or evolution. I don't know what happened, but both theories have major questions.

Mark

thanks for all replies
creationism is not a theory--but a belief, yes?

Not necessarily, creationism doesn’t necessarily refer to god, it could refer to aliens. But then where did the aliens come from? I believe panspermia is still the leading theory, which isn’t creationism, but I guess earth based chemical evolution seems very unlikely with the finding of high levels of oxygen way back in the day.

 

[ding]

Why not?

How do you know that getting to experience the full spectrum doesn't make us better people?

so you are saying god did create man through creation, with human body faults?

No. I am saying God gave man a precious and rare gift.

Let’s thank the gods for that blueprint for the cancer cell. Not so rare or precious.

If you are going to blame God for the bad, don't you think you should credit God for the good.

Assigning attributes to the gods such as "good" and "bad" puts the theist is quite a predicament.

The classic argument against the proposed attributes of gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define a god that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that the gods, if they are to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil.

I don't have that problem.

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

 

[ding]

Thanks for your input, troll.

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. A hypothesis is given theory status when either by experiment or many observations (and observations of that hypothesis's predictions) prove to be true. Any hypothesis that attains theory status must also meet some other criteria. It must be able to make testable predictions, and it must be falsifiable. That is, observation or experiment could show that it can be shown to be false (or true).

Now, evolution has a great amount of observational evidence to support it. It also makes predictions (for example, that bacteria and insects can become resistant to anti-biotics or certain insecticides), and these predictions have been observed. Evolution also makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil records, and for the most part these have proven true. The observations support the theory. The Cambrian explosion was explained by a slight modification to the theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which again is supported by the evidence. Not only that, but DNA structures common to different life forms is highly suggestive of the truth of evolution, as evolution would predict exactly that this should be true, and observation and study of DNA structures thus far confirm that prediction.

Ok but how did the first living cell come about?

I don't pretend that I know.
However. the inclusion of abiogenesis in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of evolutionary science. Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of a god or gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware; it does not matter.

Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

and the ''creation'' of man was a 'diversion' of one species into another which is evolution
evolution ''created'' man

Under the laws of nature that were in existence before space and time. It was predestined.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for your input, troll.

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. A hypothesis is given theory status when either by experiment or many observations (and observations of that hypothesis's predictions) prove to be true. Any hypothesis that attains theory status must also meet some other criteria. It must be able to make testable predictions, and it must be falsifiable. That is, observation or experiment could show that it can be shown to be false (or true).

Now, evolution has a great amount of observational evidence to support it. It also makes predictions (for example, that bacteria and insects can become resistant to anti-biotics or certain insecticides), and these predictions have been observed. Evolution also makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil records, and for the most part these have proven true. The observations support the theory. The Cambrian explosion was explained by a slight modification to the theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which again is supported by the evidence. Not only that, but DNA structures common to different life forms is highly suggestive of the truth of evolution, as evolution would predict exactly that this should be true, and observation and study of DNA structures thus far confirm that prediction.

Ok but how did the first living cell come about?

I don't pretend that I know.
However. the inclusion of abiogenesis in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of evolutionary science. Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of a god or gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware; it does not matter.

Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

and the ''creation'' of man was a 'diversion' of one species into another which is evolution
evolution ''created'' man

That's a completely rational position and one consistent with the mechanisms of biological evolution. The fossil record contains thousands of transitional forms between every major taxonomic level category and obviously, that includes humankind, also.

I do, in fact, believe in evolution in general and Darwinian evolution in particular because it is the strongest of all competing theories for the diversity of species.

That is also why I believe in Einstein's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the plate tectonic theory of earth history. Because they are respectively the strongest of all competing theories for gravity, disease and earth history.

 

[ding]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

No doubt that the universe is a pretty inhospitable environment for life. If the Sahara desert represents all the matter in the universe, all the life in the universe would be represented by a single grain of sand. That's how rare life is.

So if these conditions are what are required for beings that know and create to arise, why blame God at all for how inhospitable the universe is for the living.

Either the gods are the creators of all or not. There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

There is only one Creator, Hollie. He doesn't care what you call Him. He has left us largely to our own devices. Choose wisely, but above all when you don't, don't rationalize you did.

 

[sealybobo]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

Yes

 

[ding]

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

You believe or know?

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. A hypothesis is given theory status when either by experiment or many observations (and observations of that hypothesis's predictions) prove to be true. Any hypothesis that attains theory status must also meet some other criteria. It must be able to make testable predictions, and it must be falsifiable. That is, observation or experiment could show that it can be shown to be false (or true).

Now, evolution has a great amount of observational evidence to support it. It also makes predictions (for example, that bacteria and insects can become resistant to anti-biotics or certain insecticides), and these predictions have been observed. Evolution also makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil records, and for the most part these have proven true. The observations support the theory. The Cambrian explosion was explained by a slight modification to the theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which again is supported by the evidence. Not only that, but DNA structures common to different life forms is highly suggestive of the truth of evolution, as evolution would predict exactly that this should be true, and observation and study of DNA structures thus far confirm that prediction.

Ok but how did the first living cell come about?

I don't pretend that I know.
However. the inclusion of abiogenesis in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of evolutionary science. Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of a god or gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware; it does not matter.

Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

I know that. I am discussing the origin of life for no other reason than it deserves to be discussed.

As for evolution. Evolution is not limited to living things. Evolution is when anything changes from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Matter and energy were created 14 billion years ago. It started as subatomic particles, then quickly changed to hydrogen and helium, then through supernovas changed into all the elements and compounds that we see. Eventually matter made the leap to living organisms. How it did so, no one knows. But only a fool would believe the amino acids assembled themselves. And the amount of information required for sequencing is staggering even for a single cell organism. Ultimately matter which was created 14 billion years ago has evolved to the point that it became self aware of itself. Now that's evolution.

So quite literally, we are made of star dust. Just like it says in that 3000 year old book.

 

[ding]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

Yes

Where did it come from?

 

[harmonica]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

No doubt that the universe is a pretty inhospitable environment for life. If the Sahara desert represents all the matter in the universe, all the life in the universe would be represented by a single grain of sand. That's how rare life is.

So if these conditions are what are required for beings that know and create to arise, why blame God at all for how inhospitable the universe is for the living.

Either the gods are the creators of all or not. There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

There is only one Creator, Hollie. He doesn't care what you call Him. He has left us largely to our own devices. Choose wisely, but above all when you don't, don't rationalize you did.

why do we have to choose wisely?

 

[Hollie]

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose.

You know this how?

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

 

[Czernobog]

I asked a very religious person that if Adam and Eve's kids had kids, etc --wasn't that incest?
the answer:: not back then it wasn't !!!!!!!!!!!!

this is another aspect---only god could populate the earth from ONE man and woman--because this is impossible without god
so there could not have been disease, starvation, etc with Adam and Eve--so we have a totally different world with Adam and Eve, yes?? this doesn't make sense

Adam and Eve, as well as several generations of their children were just about genetically perfect. They did not have recessive genes, which are the reason we don't marry our siblings anymore. And you would also have the same problem of inbreeding with evolution. After all, you guys believe we all evolved from a single one-celled critter.

Says who? Single celled organism? Sure. Just one? Where are you getting that?

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for your input, troll.

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. A hypothesis is given theory status when either by experiment or many observations (and observations of that hypothesis's predictions) prove to be true. Any hypothesis that attains theory status must also meet some other criteria. It must be able to make testable predictions, and it must be falsifiable. That is, observation or experiment could show that it can be shown to be false (or true).

Now, evolution has a great amount of observational evidence to support it. It also makes predictions (for example, that bacteria and insects can become resistant to anti-biotics or certain insecticides), and these predictions have been observed. Evolution also makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil records, and for the most part these have proven true. The observations support the theory. The Cambrian explosion was explained by a slight modification to the theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which again is supported by the evidence. Not only that, but DNA structures common to different life forms is highly suggestive of the truth of evolution, as evolution would predict exactly that this should be true, and observation and study of DNA structures thus far confirm that prediction.

Ok but how did the first living cell come about?

I don't pretend that I know.
However. the inclusion of abiogenesis in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of evolutionary science. Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of a god or gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware; it does not matter.

Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

I know that. I am discussing the origin of life for no other reason than it deserves to be discussed.

As for evolution. Evolution is not limited to living things. Evolution is when anything changes from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Matter and energy were created 14 billion years ago. It started as subatomic particles, then quickly changed to hydrogen and helium, then through supernovas changed into all the elements and compounds that we see. Eventually matter made the leap to living organisms. How it did so, no one knows. But only a fool would believe the amino acids assembled themselves. And the amount of information required for sequencing is staggering even for a single cell organism. Ultimately matter which was created 14 billion years ago has evolved to the point that it became self aware of itself. Now that's evolution.

So quite literally, we are made of star dust. Just like it says in that 3000 year old book.

"Evolution is when anything changes from a less advanced state to a more advanced state."

Sorry, but that defines a fundamental misunderstanding of biological evolution. Evolution is not directional. It does not advance inexorably from dumb to smart or from simple to complex. The impression you have that it does so is merely (again) the human tendency to impose our own biases of social progress onto a natural world that does not share them.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

 

[Hollie]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

No doubt that the universe is a pretty inhospitable environment for life. If the Sahara desert represents all the matter in the universe, all the life in the universe would be represented by a single grain of sand. That's how rare life is.

So if these conditions are what are required for beings that know and create to arise, why blame God at all for how inhospitable the universe is for the living.

Either the gods are the creators of all or not. There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

There is only one Creator, Hollie. He doesn't care what you call Him. He has left us largely to our own devices. Choose wisely, but above all when you don't, don't rationalize you did.

How do you know there is only one creator?

 

[harmonica]

I asked a very religious person that if Adam and Eve's kids had kids, etc --wasn't that incest?
the answer:: not back then it wasn't !!!!!!!!!!!!

this is another aspect---only god could populate the earth from ONE man and woman--because this is impossible without god
so there could not have been disease, starvation, etc with Adam and Eve--so we have a totally different world with Adam and Eve, yes?? this doesn't make sense

Adam and Eve, as well as several generations of their children were just about genetically perfect. They did not have recessive genes, which are the reason we don't marry our siblings anymore. And you would also have the same problem of inbreeding with evolution. After all, you guys believe we all evolved from a single one-celled critter.

what happened to make them ''not genetically perfect''??
also, they had enough food for everyone? so the birth rate was much higher for Adam and EVE and their siblings than later on in history?? Come on--that doesn't make sense
they populated the world with just one man and woman??

 

[Hollie]

I asked a very religious person that if Adam and Eve's kids had kids, etc --wasn't that incest?
the answer:: not back then it wasn't !!!!!!!!!!!!

this is another aspect---only god could populate the earth from ONE man and woman--because this is impossible without god
so there could not have been disease, starvation, etc with Adam and Eve--so we have a totally different world with Adam and Eve, yes?? this doesn't make sense

Adam and Eve, as well as several generations of their children were just about genetically perfect. They did not have recessive genes, which are the reason we don't marry our siblings anymore. And you would also have the same problem of inbreeding with evolution. After all, you guys believe we all evolved from a single one-celled critter.

what happened to make them ''not genetically perfect''??
also, they had enough food for everyone? so the birth rate was much higher for Adam and EVE and their siblings than later on in history?? Come on--that doesn't make sense
they populated the world with just one man and woman??

I found the “inbreeding” comment a bit odd. According to the Noah fable, it was only Noah and his immediate family left to repopulate the earth after their “pleasure cruise to nowhere”. That suggests some rather, how shall we say...”creepy”, implications of incestuous and familial relations.

Talk about “inbreeding”?

 

[ding]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

No doubt that the universe is a pretty inhospitable environment for life. If the Sahara desert represents all the matter in the universe, all the life in the universe would be represented by a single grain of sand. That's how rare life is.

So if these conditions are what are required for beings that know and create to arise, why blame God at all for how inhospitable the universe is for the living.

Either the gods are the creators of all or not. There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

There is only one Creator, Hollie. He doesn't care what you call Him. He has left us largely to our own devices. Choose wisely, but above all when you don't, don't rationalize you did.

How do you know there is only one creator?

Why would you think there were more than one?