if not evolution

[ding]

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.

Biological evolution is but one aspect of evolution. Unless of course you don't think you are evolving as a human being.

 

[ding]

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.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

 

[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.

why do we have to choose wisely?

To avoid the predictable surprises of course.

 

[harmonica]

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?

To avoid the predictable surprises of course.

?????

 

[Indeependent]

I just heard an obstetrician explain the 24 conditions for a baby to survive in the womb,
I just heard an obstetrician explain the 24 conditions for a baby to survive once it's born,
The 24 conditions for survival in the womb are exactly the opposite of the 24 conditions for a baby to survive once it's born,
The metamorphosis occurs within 3 minutes.
The obstetrician was explaining why evolution is...well...bullshit.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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?

Both Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories and beliefs.

but evolution has a ''complex'', scientific, etc base---fossils/DNA/etc---even if you don't think these thing disprove evolution..
creationist just say ''god did it''

the critical aspect is if you think the earth is as old as evolutionists say----that would definitely point to evolution

By theory, I am defining it as a system of beliefs that hold together and are internally consistent. The difference, is that Evolution is scientific and ID is not.

As far as belief, science is a belief also, based on faith.

I consider science my religion.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The answer you are seeking is things are the way they are to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

humans have no idea how god or ''godness''/etc works ..it's beyond our comprehension
the beginning of the universe is beyond our little minds
but the human body is not
fossils are not
etc

It is much worse than that. Intelligent Designers or creationists have a zillion different views of their God(s). I cannot even carry on an argument with one w/o another jumping in with something completely different.

The funny part. They as theists, never argue with each other even though their views are just as different from each other as they are with evolution.

 

[MarkDuffy]

another aspect is if god created man, why is the human body so imperfect?

Are you arguing that since man is not perfect there can be no God? Why?

We are told that God is perfection, yes

 

[MarkDuffy]

The answer you are seeking is things are the way they are to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

There is absolutely zero evidence that intelligence or your view of consciousness is a positive selective trait.

You appear to believe that evolution has a direction and that is toward higher intelligence.

We as a species might just be the shortest-lived species ever to have inhabited this rock.

 

[MarkDuffy]

another aspect is if god created man, why is the human body so imperfect?

Are you arguing that since man is not perfect there can be no God? Why?

no, I'm saying that it would not make sense for god to make man with the many physical problems man has by creation and not evolution
--not to mention the mental ones

why do we have problems with wisdom teeth? if not evolution, then why?
conjoined babies!! ?
etc

or a tail bone or numerous anatomical remnants from previous evolution.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

No recessive genes in Adam & Eve

LOL

Then where did the recessives come from?

Evolution?

 

[MarkDuffy]

another aspect is if god created man, why is the human body so imperfect?

Are you arguing that since man is not perfect there can be no God? Why?

no, I'm saying that it would not make sense for god to make man with the many physical problems man has by creation and not evolution
--not to mention the mental ones

why do we have problems with wisdom teeth? if not evolution, then why?
conjoined babies!! ?
etc

You might want to ask yourself why we have two sets of teeth? Our baby teeth, and our adult teeth. How do evolutionists explain that one? And why can't we grow new teeth after we get our adult teeth? You'd think evolution would have came up with a solution to that problem after all these billions of years.

Organisms past child-bearing years are not very important to evolution.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Both Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories and beliefs.

but evolution has a ''complex'', scientific, etc base---fossils/DNA/etc---even if you don't think these thing disprove evolution..
creationist just say ''god did it''

the critical aspect is if you think the earth is as old as evolutionists say----that would definitely point to evolution

By theory, I am defining it as a system of beliefs that hold together and are internally consistent. The difference, is that Evolution is scientific and ID is not.

As far as belief, science is a belief also, based on faith.

I consider science my religion.

Evolution is not based on science.
Once you become a scientist you will understand this.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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

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

That’s it folks! We have a winner! Thanks to all who played.

Uh, no we don't.

If God used evolution, then we don't need a God at all.

You all lose the argument.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Why do you think your gods are the only gods?

 

[Indeependent]

The only "scientists" who believe in evolution are those who major in Evolution.
There are way too many long lasting anomalies in nature to account for evolution.

 

[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.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

I’m not convinced you are the final arbiter of what is allegorical and what is not with regard to biblical Genesis.

I suggest the creation story is all an allegory. What is more important: A god who clearly delivers his message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or does he speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what his intent is? What a risk he puts his children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? What if the point is this (using the Christian perspective in this case) – God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and evolution is a heretical belief system that counters God's clear and unmuddled word that he alone is responsible for creation?

What if, since you've opened the door to allegory, the crucifixion and the resurrection are allegory as well? Offhand, I can really see the allegorical nature of the resurrection, that men die, go into the earth, but then live on-- this would explain for the gatherers and herders the idea of the cyclic nature of Nature, that we "live on" as part of God's greater creation. It's a nice allegory, isn't it?

I doubt any Christian theist would accept it as true, however.

 

[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.

No recessive genes in Adam & Eve

LOL

Then where did the recessives come from?

Evolution?

I, also, am waiting for the reply on this one

 

[MarkDuffy]

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?

Simple, there has to be many more than just one God. Nature does not like singularities.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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?

From pre-cells