Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

No that is completely incorrect

There dosnt have to be a god at all .... i have seen nothing to suggest that there needs to be a god at all everything currently in nature can be explained by evolution quite well

my point is that God is nature, you see? there is no difference.. evolution is right, of course it is, i never disagreed.. i only disagree with the perception that God is something outside of our experience, when by definition life is an experience of God..

you see?

nothing is "completely incorrect", just divided into parts which don't fit until you step back and see the whole picture..

you have no evidence for a god yet you are claiming there is one ... that is the opposite of atheism ... i dont see evidence for god in evolution at all and neither do other scientists ... it explains god away quite nicely

scientists have created life from nothing but atoms and electricity ... you dont need a god for life to develop in any way shape or form

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The one thing that has bothered me about evolution is the fact that in nature the majority of animals and plants have a male or female aspect to them. This male and female aspect is dependent on each other to procreate. Why an organism that possible began as a self replication life form would devolve into one that was dependant on another life form of the same kind to procreate? It would seem to me to be a step backward that would increase the chances of that organism not to survive.

Genetic diversity increases when you have more potential mates to choose from instead of just mating
With yourself. With that said amphibians are capable of asexual reproduction particularly when in a situation where there aren't any traditional options for mating so on some level that ability is still there if somewhat dormant.

Originally posted by peter vlar

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The one thing that has bothered me about evolution is the fact that in nature the majority of animals and plants have a male or female aspect to them. This male and female aspect is dependent on each other to procreate. Why an organism that possible began as a self replication life form would devolve into one that was dependant on another life form of the same kind to procreate? It would seem to me to be a step backward that would increase the chances of that organism not to survive.

Genetic diversity increases when you have more potential mates to choose from instead of just mating
With yourself. With that said amphibians are capable of asexual reproduction particularly when in a situation where there aren't any traditional options for mating so on some level that ability is still there if somewhat dormant.

Peter is right pretty much

you have no genetic mutation when you clone yourself ... you need genetic mutation for evolution

if you breed with another you get genetic mutations and that fuels natural selection as the animal that has a unique genetic mutation will maybe survive better then the perfect copy due to another appendage/sharper teeth/more hair .... anything really that helps the species survive easier ... and because he survives longer he breeds more spreading that mutation through the gene pool making a better adapted species


thats why sex is better then cloning yourself ...

Originally posted by King Loki

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

No that is completely incorrect

There dosnt have to be a god at all .... i have seen nothing to suggest that there needs to be a god at all everything currently in nature can be explained by evolution quite well

my point is that God is nature, you see? there is no difference.. evolution is right, of course it is, i never disagreed.. i only disagree with the perception that God is something outside of our experience, when by definition life is an experience of God..

you see?

nothing is "completely incorrect", just divided into parts which don't fit until you step back and see the whole picture..

you have no evidence for a god yet you are claiming there is one ... that is the opposite of atheism ... i dont see evidence for god in evolution at all and neither do other scientists ... it explains god away quite nicely

edit on 29/8/13 by King Loki because: (no reason given)

science does not "explain away" God, it simply explains him.. get it bro?

you are still under the illusion that God is nothing more than what religion says He is, when it is obvious that universal intelligence exists in everything..

it's just semantics my friend.. annoying little bits of information that when taken literally and on their own don't agree, but when looked at from a broader perspective agree completely..

...thats why sex is better then cloning yourself

i can think of a few more reasons why sex is better than cloning

Tried the video, but the minute I heard Ray Comfort's voice...

reply to post by guitarplayer


Sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic diversification. This allows for resistance to deleterious mutations as well as allowing for faster adaptation to a rapidly changing environment. It certainly has its advantages. It should also be noted that there is no such thing devolution. Evolution has no set goal and as a result a mutation cannot cause a species from getting closer to or farther away from this nonexistent endpoint.

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by King Loki

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

No that is completely incorrect

There dosnt have to be a god at all .... i have seen nothing to suggest that there needs to be a god at all everything currently in nature can be explained by evolution quite well

my point is that God is nature, you see? there is no difference.. evolution is right, of course it is, i never disagreed.. i only disagree with the perception that God is something outside of our experience, when by definition life is an experience of God..

you see?

nothing is "completely incorrect", just divided into parts which don't fit until you step back and see the whole picture..

you have no evidence for a god yet you are claiming there is one ... that is the opposite of atheism ... i dont see evidence for god in evolution at all and neither do other scientists ... it explains god away quite nicely

edit on 29/8/13 by King Loki because: (no reason given)

science does not "explain away" God, it simply explains him.. get it bro?

you are still under the illusion that God is nothing more than what religion says He is, when it is obvious that universal intelligence exists in everything..

it's just semantics my friend.. annoying little bits of information that when taken literally and on their own don't agree, but when looked at from a broader perspective agree completely..

...thats why sex is better then cloning yourself

i can think of a few more reasons why sex is better than cloning

edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

no i dont get it because he dosnt need to be there at all ... its a human concept to have a creator not the universes ... i have never seen any evidence for something having created this universe anywhere.

I am a medical scientist and in all my years science has done nothing but convince me of the non existence of a god or creator of any kind ... you're just putting imaginary things there that dont even need to be there

its like adding a middle man when you dont need one ... there is no point

After all this talk about the validity of the Bible I am reminded of a stand up routine by David Cross. So it is time to bring some levity to yet another long winded debate on evolution vs Creationism.

Originally posted by King Loki
scientists have created life from nothing but atoms and electricity ... you dont need a god for life to develop in any way shape or form

I can't wait to see your proof.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
After all this talk about the validity of the Bible I am reminded of a stand up routine by David Cross. So it is time to bring some levity to yet another long winded debate on evolution vs Creationism.

there is 0 legitimacy to the bible anyone who studies history knows the bible is a complete rip off from older religions

I can say with 100% certainty that the bible is just a book written by men to control a population at one time.

there is many deity's with the exact same jesus story from thousands of years before the bible ... right there is a red flag everyone should talk about

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by King Loki
scientists have created life from nothing but atoms and electricity ... you dont need a god for life to develop in any way shape or form

I can't wait to see your proof.

LOLOLOLOLOL they did this in the 70's AHAHAHAHA are you seriously telling me you have not seen this experiment .... Carl Sagan actually showed it on his show "The cosmos" IN THE 70's


how are you this far behind the curve AHAHAHAHAHA ... wow ... nice research ... wow just wow ... i have no words

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

No that is completely incorrect

There dosnt have to be a god at all .... i have seen nothing to suggest that there needs to be a god at all everything currently in nature can be explained by evolution quite well

Can you then explain to me the Cambian explosion? The intorduction of muliply lifeforms and fauna that was not here prior to that time period.Where did all the new DNA data come from?

Originally posted by guitarplayer

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

No that is completely incorrect

There dosnt have to be a god at all .... i have seen nothing to suggest that there needs to be a god at all everything currently in nature can be explained by evolution quite well

Can you then explain to me the Cambian explosion? The intorduction of muliply lifeforms and fauna that was not here prior to that time period.Where did all the new DNA data come from?

Have you studied evolution at all ... this is all explained in it ... I shouldn't have to explain this to people on this site should I .... wow ... i have to waste an hour of my time explain something to you that you could read ... gimme a sec ill find an article because im not witting all that out

reply to post by guitarplayer

Can you then explain to me the Cambian explosion? The intorduction of muliply lifeforms and fauna that was not here prior to that time period.Where did all the new DNA data come from?

Is Google down or something? I hadn't realized ATS offered an automated search service complete with live customer service representatives. It does, of course, boast a handy dandy search engine which is available to ALL members...perhaps you should check it out.

Originally posted by guitarplayer

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

No that is completely incorrect

There dosnt have to be a god at all .... i have seen nothing to suggest that there needs to be a god at all everything currently in nature can be explained by evolution quite well

Can you then explain to me the Cambian explosion? The intorduction of muliply lifeforms and fauna that was not here prior to that time period.Where did all the new DNA data come from?

here carl sagan explains it perfectly in 6 mins actually

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I can't wait to see your proof.

That's a lot coming from someone who hasn't even proven their own case yet. Oh wait, did you prove the existence of a deity? That's right, you didn't. You should work on that instead of upholding your double standards.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by King Loki
scientists have created life from nothing but atoms and electricity ... you dont need a god for life to develop in any way shape or form

I can't wait to see your proof.

here is the experiment here bro

no i dont get it because he dosnt need to be there at all ... its a human concept to have a creator not the universes ... i have never seen any evidence for something having created this universe anywhere.

let me try to illustrate the point more clearly.. light exists, yes? the sun is the "creator" of light for the earth, but it is not the creator of light itself.. light is created by a process.. in the same sense, God is thought of as the "creator" of everything at its most fundamental level.. God is just a theological synonym for the word "universe"..

I am a medical scientist and in all my years science has done nothing but convince me of the non existence of a god or creator of any kind ... you're just putting imaginary things there that dont even need to be there

well, no.. here you are again separating the theological definition of God and the scientific one.. of course they don't agree in literal terms, but they do agree completely in principle..

its like adding a middle man when you dont need one ... there is no point

edit on 29/8/13 by King Loki because: (no reason given)

so if i say the big bang created the universe, am i introducing a middle man? or am i simply summing up the way in which the universe created itself?

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Evolution V's God

Evo wins............by default

But...what if it's not "Evolution vs God"....what if it's Evolution AND God?

What if there's a God who used everything science is discovering about the universe 'to' create it all, so that the scientists could experience the joy of making their discoveries?

Just something to ponder...