Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I like the example that believing in evolution with its vast improbability is the same as believing a tornado could hit a massive junkyard and when it leaves an hour later a perfect able to fly 747 would be left in it's wake. Most pro-evolution people hate this example because it is exactly what they believe happened millions of years ago. How can you create something from nothing? How can you get life from non-life. And if we being so intelligent cannot create life, then how can it just happen by accident.

Not sure why people always are so concerned as explanation for there not being a "higher power"..... why couldn't a "god" be able to set life in motion by creating the very basic life, left to breed out the different qualties that aren't suitable for living in whichever environment. Starts with simple living against the elements, then once it becomes a compition it becomes breeding out the qualities that get you killed and the ones that live pass on their genetic code that helped keep them alive to pass it on.

A tornado is a horrible example because its a violent quick thing that implies complexity can be created in an instant, so really i'd say thats more akin to the idea god just instantly created man.

Personally if I were someone wanted to be able to measure the faith in me based on what people believe from other people preaching based of reading books about people who were involved with me, I'd use the most complex way of creating these people, as to make it that much mroe difficult to prove my existence. If god wanted everyone believe he was there 100%, wouldn't he just be idk... being Seen on such a lvl that it would be undisputable. Instead we have multiple different religions that just make it seem like God doesn't want to be found. If people knew god existed to be feared, then what would that do for testing faith? Wouldn't it be a meaningless thing if everyone Knew?

Its like santa, except instead of bringing you presents every year, depending if your bad or good, you get sent to "heaven" or "hell", which if gods always around to watch you, how would earth be different than "heaven"?

To prevent not being found, I would probably go with using the evolution formula instead of just "boom" your there, its not like god wouldn't be able skip past the evolution of man up to the point god would want to start intereaction.... that would be apart of being god.

I've learned how evolution works, sharks are the perfect example of evolution as they are specialized from tooth to eye to even having different lungs (some have to keep swimming, some can pump water and be stationary), several different colorations for camoflauge in the different invironments.

To think visually how a species evolves into many, imagine you have a page with all the colors on it, all stemming from the center, getting lighter in shade towards the edges. With this image you take and pour one color on the center, as it spreads it will change based on what it mixes with as it flows outward. You end up with a spectrum of different colors. A much better visual than your tornado and airplane idea.

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb




the gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution but the logic gaps in the theological record don't disprove a literal interpretation of the bible?

nice try

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

Logic gaps thats a new one for me, you'll have to give me some examples, which I can almost guarantee come down to no true understanding of Biblical theology.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of Bethlehem from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during the same period.

And they travelled all the way from Nazareth to be present for a census which likely never happened.

Because they had to make up a story to comply with the prophecy despite the far more likely possibility that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Obviously this study sucks because it doesn't really investigate the variables of the fabrications very well.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

"Micro-evolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution. Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."

Please read the sentence. Micro-evolution MAY lead to speciation....this has not been proven or observed and this is exactly why I am saying Macro-evolution is a bogus part of an otherwise decent theory.

"may" means it is capable of producing it. macroevolution does not exist as a seperate thing, it's a "zoomed out" view of microevolution, that is all. they both describe the exact same process

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

The modern theory of The Big Bang is a process that begins with a particle that humans would generally percieve as nothing, yes. It's not exactly nothing, though. Nothing is really nothing. Not even a vacuum.

If you start from the starting point of The Big Bang and work unbiased in a prediction of what would happen, you could expect the universe to look and behave exactly as it does.

Regardless if its nothing or a heap of chaos smaller than a period on this page it is still illogical to think in a random explosion everything was created, and we just got lucky and just so happen to land in the right spot for life ok if you can believe that good for you I can't.

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

"may" means it is capable of producing it. macroevolution does not exist as a seperate thing, it's a "zoomed out" view of microevolution, that is all. they both describe the exact same process

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

I am sorry my friend but that is not what the word may means. The word may means it may or may not be capable of doing so, I understand that you believe micro-evolution eventually becomes macro once enough time has gone by, however until that is proven and observed, and please don't say it is because if it was it would be the law of evolution, it is just a theory.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

The modern theory of The Big Bang is a process that begins with a particle that humans would generally percieve as nothing, yes. It's not exactly nothing, though. Nothing is really nothing. Not even a vacuum.

If you start from the starting point of The Big Bang and work unbiased in a prediction of what would happen, you could expect the universe to look and behave exactly as it does.

Regardless if its nothing or a heap of chaos smaller than a period on this page it is still illogical to think in a random explosion everything was created, and we just got lucky and just so happen to land in the right spot for life ok if you can believe that good for you I can't.

Oh ye of little faith.

Too bad you don't need faith, though.

Just math skills. Thank Higgs Boson that Steven Hawkings possessed more of that skill than you seem to.

The argument that we "just so happened to be here" is ridiculous. You say that as if you could have ended up being protons in an atom somewhere in a distant galaxy. We are able to have this discussion because we are beings who are on a planet which supports life. We're not here by some stroke of luck as opposed to being anywhere else in the universe. We are here because our parents bred, and their parents before them, and their parents before them. It's finite and there is zero luck involved.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

"may" means it is capable of producing it. macroevolution does not exist as a seperate thing, it's a "zoomed out" view of microevolution, that is all. they both describe the exact same process

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

I am sorry my friend but that is not what the word may means. The word may means it may or may not be capable of doing so, I understand that you believe micro-evolution eventually becomes macro once enough time has gone by, however until that is proven and observed, and please don't say it is because if it was it would be the law of evolution, it is just a theory.

not quite buddy, the term "may" means it is capable of it, the term "may not" means it is not capable of it, you see the difference?

i believe evolution is evolution, and there is no difference between it being measured on the macro and micro scale. it is observed, from the formation of molecules to the formation of landscapes to the formation of organisms. it is the method of creation itself.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

I am sorry my friend but that is not what the word may means. The word may means it may or may not be capable of doing so

You have the worst math and language comprehension I have seen in years.

Please just stop.

The word "May" assumes possibility. For instance, you can't say "I may shapeshift into a tennis ball in the next 26 milliseconds" without being fallacious.

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of Bethlehem from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during the same period.

And then they travelled all the way to Nazareth to be present for a census which never happened.

Because they had to make up a story to comply with the prophecy despite the far more likely possibility that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Obviously this study sucks because it doesn't really investigate the variables of the fabrications very well.

Ok I hate to break it to, but just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it is fabricated.

www.biblearchaeology.org...

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb




the gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution but the logic gaps in the theological record don't disprove a literal interpretation of the bible?

nice try

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

Logic gaps thats a new one for me, you'll have to give me some examples, which I can almost guarantee come down to no true understanding of Biblical theology.

here's an example. if one literally believes the word of the bible, to the exclusion of all else, then how can it explain anything not specifically mentioned in it? the bible does not say evolution is false, it just describes it in poetic terms, not literal ones..

where in the bible is vedic philosophy discussed? hinduism? islam? they are not, but that does not mean that they do not exist or are not valid interpretations of God's word..

God didn't make the world in six days and then sit back and rest for a day, that is not a logical statement, it is a gap in logic.. it is more logical to believe He created the whole universe over billions of years, and continues to do so..

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

not quite buddy, the term "may" means it is capable of it, the term "may not" means it is not capable of it, you see the difference?

i believe evolution is evolution, and there is no difference between it being measured on the macro and micro scale. it is observed, from the formation of molecules to the formation of landscapes to the formation of organisms. it is the method of creation itself.

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

Then why isn't it scientific law if you have got it all figured out. This debate is pointless if you were right and evolution was proven it would be law end of discussion. Let me show you that it is not me who has the language problem. The definition of the word may as used in that sentence is as follows "expressing possibility." The sentence used as an example is "That may be true." This means it is has a chance to be possible, but not necessarily going to happen. If you want to argue with a dictionary ok be my guest .

Then why isn't it scientific law if you have got it all figured out.

it is scientific law, and not because i understand it.. other people have figured it out and shared what they have learned

This debate is pointless if you were right and evolution was proven it would be law end of discussion.

it is proven and it is law, and yet the discussion continues.. i am as lost as you on this mate..

. Let me show you that it is not me who has the language problem. The definition of the word may as used in that sentence is as follows "expressing possibility." The sentence used as an example is "That may be true." This means it is has a chance to be possible, but not necessarily going to happen. If you want to argue with a dictionary ok be my guest .

if it has a chance to be possible, then it is possible.. and no amount of "it might not happen" will stop it from occasionally happening.. anything that is "possible" is inevitable in fact..

isn't that what faith is based on? the belief of something being possible and therefore certain to occur?

may /mā/
Verb
Expressing possibility.

pos·si·bil·i·ty /ˌpäsəˈbilətē/
Noun
1. A thing that may happen or be the case.
2. The state or fact of being likely or possible; likelihood.

may not

A prohibition against a specified action. The term does not mean "might not" or its equivalents.

might
aux.v. Past tense of may
1. a. Used to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact: She might help if she knew the truth.
2. b. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

you may discover the truth about evolution in this thread, but you might not believe it..

you may not hold a view that is contrary to logical reason, but you might hold a view that is illogical.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Please explain why the only predictions that couldn't be fabricated never happened?

Or do you have proof that Jesus claimed David's throne?

That he freed Israel?

That he was a descendant of the line of David? Joseph wasn't his father, after all.

That the two dreaded kings would be laid to waste between Jesus' birth and age of maturity?

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

The modern theory of The Big Bang is a process that begins with a particle that humans would generally percieve as nothing, yes. It's not exactly nothing, though. Nothing is really nothing. Not even a vacuum.

If you start from the starting point of The Big Bang and work unbiased in a prediction of what would happen, you could expect the universe to look and behave exactly as it does.

Regardless if its nothing or a heap of chaos smaller than a period on this page it is still illogical to think in a random explosion everything was created, and we just got lucky and just so happen to land in the right spot for life ok if you can believe that good for you I can't.

Oh ye of little faith.

Too bad you don't need faith, though.

Just math skills. Thank Higgs Boson that Steven Hawkings possessed more of that skill than you seem to.

The argument that we "just so happened to be here" is ridiculous. You say that as if you could have ended up being protons in an atom somewhere in a distant galaxy. We are able to have this discussion because we are beings who are on a planet which supports life. We're not here by some stroke of luck as opposed to being anywhere else in the universe. We are here because our parents bred, and their parents before them, and their parents before them. It's finite and there is zero luck involved.

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

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

You do not believe in a Creator therefore the occurrences after the Big Bang were all random act, and it is by luck that all of those random acts led to life on earth. I am sorry, but math does not explain why all the random events that led to life on earth. I understand that it would be impossible for us to study a world in which we could not live, but a mathematical description of an event doesn't tell us why they led to life on this particular planet, which if God isnt real is very very lucky.

You do not believe in a Creator therefore the occurrences after the Big Bang were all random act, and it is by luck that all of those random acts led to life on earth.

there is a difference between defining God as only the creator, as in deism, and defining Him as the intelligence of universe itself, as in pantheism.. a higher "being" is not necessary for the creation of the universe, only a higher "intelligence"..

I am sorry, but math does not explain why all the random events that led to life on earth. I understand that it would be impossible for us to study a world in which we could not live, but a mathematical description of an event doesn't tell us why they led to life on this particular planet, which if God isnt real is very very lucky.

math proves that nothing is random.. you are correct in saying mathematics can't explain "why" creation exists, it can only describe "how" it exists..

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Please explain why the only predictions that couldn't be fabricated never happened?

Or do you have proof that Jesus claimed David's throne?

That he freed Israel?

That he was a descendant of the line of David? Joseph wasn't his father, after all.

That the two dreaded kings would be laid to waste between Jesus' birth and age of maturity?

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

Well, once again a misunderstanding based on no conception of theology. In Biblical times there was no word for father-in-law, just as there was no word for grandfather. Joseph can’t be the son of both Jacob and Heli. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Chag. 77,4), Heli was actually Mary’s father making him Joseph’s father-in-law. The reason the two genealogies are different is that Joseph was descended from Solomon while Mary was a descendant of Solomon’s older brother Nathan.

So Joseph and Mary were actually cousins although many times removed. Since Heli had no sons, Mary had to find a husband from the tribe of Judah like herself to protect her father’s estate.(See Numbers 36) She also needed a direct descendant of Solomon to perfect her son’s claim to the throne of David, since Nathan’s descendants weren’t of the Royal line.

Joseph fit the bill on both accounts but like every other descendant of Solomon’s carried a blood curse disqualifying any biological son of his from ever being King of Israel.(Jeremiah 22:28-30) Since Joseph was not the Lord’s biological father, he could adopt Him, qualifying Him to be King without passing Him the curse.

Thus, because of the virgin birth, Jesus became the only one in Israel qualified to sit on David’s throne, and remains so to this day.

As far as the genealogies go, notice that the passage reads “fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.” (Matt 1:17) Technically the exile occurred before the reign of Jeconiah ended, so Matthew counted him again at the start of the third list, giving each 14 names.

Just because i know you going to say, "but Joseph wasn't his biological father." From the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we know that both Joseph and Mary were from the Tribe of Judah and the House of David. Joseph was a descendant of Solomon’s and therefore a member of the cursed royal line. Mary was from the line of Nathan, Solomon’s brother. When they married, Joseph became the Lord’s legal father, in effect adopting Him. As the adopted son, the Lord gained legal standing as a descendant of the house and lineage of David through both parents.

And as a practical matter, since He was adopted and not Joseph’s biological son he escaped the curse and became the only man in the last 2600 years qualified to take the throne of His ancestor David.

The purification of Israel is referring to the 70th week of Daniel(Tribulation), and at the end of that Jesus will claim Davids throne. I can also make a pretty strong case for the rapture occurring within the next seven years and even possibly as early as 2015.

Here is another one for you to attempt to butcher
The Prophecy of the destruction of trye?

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

You do not believe in a Creator therefore the occurrences after the Big Bang were all random act, and it is by luck that all of those random acts led to life on earth. I am sorry, but math does not explain why all the random events that led to life on earth. I understand that it would be impossible for us to study a world in which we could not live.

And who is anyone to say that there aren't other life forms which could've existed that aren't carbon-based.

Actually it's the least amount of luck that we ended up being carbon-based lifeforms, since carbon is the most likely element for life since it bonds with any of the CHNOPS elements.

but a mathematical description of an event doesn't tell us why they led to life on this particular planet, which if God isnt real is very very lucky.

Tell us "Why"? As if there's a specific reason? What if there is no reason? Have you considered that possibility? Because that's the most likely possiblity.

The purification of Israel is referring to the 70th week of Daniel(Tribulation), and at the end of that Jesus will claim Davids throne. I can also make a pretty strong case for the rapture occurring within the next seven years and even possibly as early as 2015.

here we go again with the strictly literal interpretation.. jesus is back already, sorting out his throne, it ain't going to be in israel though, that was only the holy land last time he was here.. the people of the time of course interpreted everything to only be applicable to them, and therefore wrote about only their land and their people being the "chosen"..

the rapture is a metaphor, it's not a literal description of what is going to happen.. people will not literally rise into the air and meet the Lord as fundamentalist christians believe.. they will elevate their consciousness and evolve.. the rapture has already begun, and nobody is going to be "left behind"..

Originally posted by tachyonmind
]

math proves that nothing is random.. you are correct in saying mathematics can't explain "why" creation exists, it can only describe "how" it exists..

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

Math does not have a will. Math did not cause all of the occurrences of the big bang and cause them to lead to life on earth, as you said it only describes them, and therefore the events are still random in that they just so happen to cause life on earth. If nothing is random everything was made with purpose, then that idea points to the idea of a creator