Evolution and God

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Evolution and God

Rumpelstiltskin
Do you think Evolution could ever be compatible with the idea of a creator?
-Be Happy-
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

PlanetGem

i think Evolution was created by Someone

have a great day :)
Dot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Dot
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
Do your pencil drawings not improve with time and experience? Are you not the creator of those drawings? Is your skill not evolving?

Creation and Evolution do just fine together until you muck it all up with the word GOD.

The creator of evolution designed it to run uninterrupted by any Willy-Nilly God of man.

If you can accept a creator is not necessarily a god, you will see it is not hard to accept creation or evolution, even together as a concept.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

joni38
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
Yes, but not the bible God.
Just when I was getting used to yesterday, along came today.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

OldMan_in_WV
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
Why a single creator given the many hundreds of creator gods that have been worshiped by mankind throughout time?
Or better yet, think about the evolution of Christianity. For its first two centuries the Christian sect was considered a subset, a denomination of the monotheistic Judaic religion. Since breaking away, its largest denomination, the Roman Catholics, have added over 7000 deities to the faith. Today the Jews remain monotheistic, while these Christians have more major and minor gods than the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans combined ever dreamed about.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Taffy
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
Rumpelstiltskin wrote
Do you think Evolution could ever be compatible with the idea of a creator?
No Rump, I don't think they are logically compatible. You need some 'torsion' of thinking to make them logically, consistently compatible.

God as catholic undertand Him, has crated men and the creation EXCLUDES the theory of evolution.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
I have no problem with an organism adapting to its environment or even having attributes that allow it to survive in a particular environment, but I have real problems with one animal morphing into another completely different animal altogether.
It is also clear that life had a definite beginning, some refer to the 'big bang' but I am always drawn back to the question: "Who pushed the button for this to occur?" Given the design that is obvious in creation, for me, the answer lies in a higher being / a Creator... whom I call God.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

peterws
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
Evolution.  A self perpetuating design improvement which caters for change in environment. This may be a small part of what God is about.  Like the piano is to music.  The piano is clumsily evolving.  Music is evolving.  Cars are evolving; dammit, even my beer`s evolved!  And I`m turning into my Da . . .
"I will usually be pushed filed stamped indexed briefed debriefed or numbered"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
I think you are confusing adaptation with evolution, peter. Evolution (according to my online dictionary) is defined as:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a ***different*** and usually more complex or better form...
3. Biology: a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and ***resulting in the development of new species.***

Note the asterisks I have inserted. Evolution accepts that a monkey, or a giraffe, can over thousands of years incrementally change into an entirely new species, e.g. a human. If this is so then we would have to accept that species,over equally long periods of time, can DE-VOLVE. So where are examples of that?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

peterws
Administrator
The dickshionary is sometimes wrong, Veritas.  As  is the spelloing therin . . .
"I will usually be pushed filed stamped indexed briefed debriefed or numbered"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Hank Kepanke
In reply to this post by Veritas
Veritas wrote
I think you are confusing adaptation with evolution, peter. Evolution (according to my online dictionary) is defined as:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a ***different*** and usually more complex or better form...
3. Biology: a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and ***resulting in the development of new species.***

Note the asterisks I have inserted. Evolution accepts that a monkey, or a giraffe, can over thousands of years incrementally change into an entirely new species, e.g. a human. If this is so then we would have to accept that species,over equally long periods of time, can DE-VOLVE. So where are examples of that?
1. What is the online definition of a primate?
2. Are there different species of primates?
3. DE-VOLVING leads directly to extinction. There are thousands of examples of that. Is that enough proof?

I don't believe we evolved from a turtle.....but I do believe we evolved from the same pond scum the turtle evolved from.
That's what science is saying. All life on Earth evolved from the same elements in different environments and continues to evolve.

Religion loves to twist that into your grandpa was once a goat. But that is still not what science is saying.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

OldMan_in_WV
In reply to this post by Rumpelstiltskin
The holy books of any faith were written long before the age of serious
scientific inquiry. There is not now nor have there ever been limits to
the human imagination. History is replete with creator gods and creation
stories to choose from. Most people go with the god or gods that is
most popular in their neck of the woods. And, most likely, the accepted
belief centers on the particular deity or deities that they were taught about
from an early age.
So, what happens when science produces new findings that are in conflict
with the writings in their holy books that came from the imaginations of
Iron Age Primitives? The science of evolution is a product of reason and
Reason is the enemy of Faith. Some believers simply reject the science
and hold solidly onto the belief that every word in their holy book is irrefutable.
Others attempting to avoid being labeled totally irrational try to put the best
possible spin on it. “Oh, no, these stories were not meant to be taken literally.”
(Which itself conflicts with the entire history of Church teachings.) And still
others, attempting to hold on to the best of both worlds, cast logic aside and
appoint themselves as the one who will determine the bits and pieces
of GOD’S HOLY WORD that they will still cling to and that which they will ignore
as invalid.

As for me, were I forced to accept one of the many supernatural entities
invented by creative minds over the centuries my choice would be clear:



AS WITH THE PROPHET LINUS
MY FATIH SHALL NOT BE SHAKEN.
BLESSED IS THE GREAT PUMPKIN.
                  AMEN.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
In reply to this post by Hank Kepanke
Hank said: " 3. DE-VOLVING leads directly to extinction. There are thousands of examples of that. Is that enough proof?"

So you are saying that dinosaurs are extinct because they devolved? Of course not.
What I am saying is that if mankind, as it presently exists, came from a lower form of creature / humanoid due to certain environmental conditions, then it is logical that if the conditions were right then we could revert back to that form. Why must we only go forward and not go backwards?

Hank also said: "Religion loves to twist that into your grandpa was once a goat. But that is still not what science is saying. "

Religion has never said that. It says that we were specifically created. That we are unique and worth loving.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
In reply to this post by OldMan_in_WV
Just as world religions have tried to make sense of how & why we are here, science too has had its fair share of theories over the years Old Man. The idea of evolution is not a recent notion - the ancient Greek thinker Anaximander taught that men had evolved from fish, another thinker Empedocles asserted that people evolved from plants.
Yet another branch of 'science' that dominated the scientific community was the theory of spontaneous generation - that creatures could arise suddenly from the mud and slime. Aristotle, for example, put this forward centuries before the birth of Christ. He and his subsequent supporters believed that they could see insects and flies suddenly appear from the mud, and that if that could happen to insects, then what about humans? This was despite the evidence of fossils which were first noticed by the Ancient Greeks and recognised for what they were: the petrified remains of once living organisms.

The theory of spontaneous generation was held for many years until William Harvey challenged it some 200 years before Louis Pasteur came on the scene. His evidence was ridiculed and ignored by the scientific community of the time. it was not until the 17th Century that a scientist named Redi was able to conclusively prove that it was a false theory.

So how was it possible that a false theory to be believed so passionately and for so long against the advice of eminent scientists such as Harvey?

As it turns out the answer is identical to those for which the theory of evolution is believed today. They are summed up in the words of the scientist Haeckel: he claimed that spontaneous generation MUST be true because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a Creator. Thus some  people believed in this theory because they did not want to believe in the God of the Bible. Exactly the same is true of evolutionists today, and in some ways evolution is rather like an elaborate sophistication of that old superstition. Does it not teach that living matter suddenly 'appeared' from non living?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

OldMan_in_WV
In science, the term “theory” holds a special place. In fact, it is the highest level of certainty that can be established. In common parlance virtually any opinion offered that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory". A scientific theory has a much more specific meaning.
A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.
Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence.
That term is used differently in popular conversation. In lay usage it is synonymous with words like “guess” or “speculation”.
The concept of spontaneous generation, though often referred to as a theory, (again in lay usage) was never more than a hypothesis.
The theory of evolution holds a place in modern science equivalent to the theory of gravity, quantum mechanics, or plate tectonics, to name a few. There is no reputable member of the scientific community anywhere who refutes it.    
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Hank Kepanke
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veritas
Veritas wrote

So you are saying that dinosaurs are extinct because they devolved?
No. I am not saying that. But let me ask you....where are the dinosaurs in your creation theory? Where did they fit in? What day were the dinosaurs created?

I am unsure if I could identify with the moving forward hypothesis. To me it seems like when you start with something and add to it, this could be also recognized as dilution. The more you change something the less pure it is and to me when you dilute the pureness of something...that could also be seen as moving backwards or devolving. I guess the basis is things devolve as they evolve, at least that's they way I understand it to be.

I have always wondered what race Adam and Eve would be.
And I have always wondered why Mountain Lions and African Lions are considered to be different species of lions and not different races of lions. Or even Mountain Lions and Panthers, both considered the same species and not different races of Mountain Lions. Why are Humans the only species on the planet considered to have different races?

When science discovers a new kind of Shrimp they call it a new species. Why not a new race instead?...it's still a shrimp.

Do you think the different races of Humans are different species? Or has evolution been happening right under the nose of creation?

The real question in this whole discussion is not "if evolution and God can coexist?"....the real question is "do you believe the body contains a spirit?". It has already been predetermined the body and spirit are separate and will divide at death. What difference does it make if the body has evolved or not in the theory of creation? As I understand it, it is the spirit or soul that is created in Gods image, not the body. The spirit or soul is where love is created, harbored, and cherished...not the body.

The theory of evolution, so far as I know it, says nothing or knows nothing of the possible evolution of the spirit. The rulebook of spiritual evolution is the same book that contains the theory of creation. Interesting contradiction isn't it?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
In reply to this post by OldMan_in_WV
"... There is no reputable member of the scientific community anywhere who refutes it."

Past Scientists

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont in her book '21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible' devoted chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.

Present day scientists

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. [italics and ellipsis used as on their web page]

Today there are thousands of modern scientists who reject evolution. There is a partial list of them at http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html. But evolutionists apparently believe that any modern scientist who rejects evolution has merely been brainwashed by Christian doctrine.

You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

   a) There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.
   b) What little evidence they have is highly questionable.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
In reply to this post by Hank Kepanke
100 years ago a Czech monk named Gregor Mendel performed an experiment which brought Darwin's theory into question. He crossed a white flower with a red flower. In doing so he learned some fundamental laws concerning inheritance. He found that the red gene was dominant over the white one at a ration of 3 red : 1 white. However when the next generation of red flowers were cross pollinated, he got white flowers created as well as red ones.
Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a NEW character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed. After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve. Mendel, however, showed that the characteristic had not been acquired - it had been present all the time, but masked by the more dominant gene.
When these results became known, supporters of Darwin, to plug the embarrassing gap, argued that existing genes could mutate or change to COMPLETELY NEW forms. Today the modern view of evolution stands or fall on the the question of mutation. If mutations don't occur it is impossible for an organism to evolve.

Whilst mutations have been shown to occur, generally any major change is a change for the worse - take the drug resistance of bacteria for example. We need stronger and stronger medicine to achieve the same effect. Consider also an island which has a population of different coloured birds. As the population increases they migrate to two nearby islands. One island is dark coloured, the other light. The dark coloured island exposes any light coloured bird to predators. These birds in time are thus exterminated, and the gene pool is depleted. Eventually only dark birds survive. And vice versa with the light coloured island where the light birds dominate. Eventually the birds on the dark and light islands come to be regarded as two separate species. Natural selection therefore has made the gene pool poorer - there are fewer forms of the gene present, not more, as the theory of evolution would require (for unless a population gains new genes it could never become more complex.)

Now the genetically poorer population of birds, in doing so, is more prone to extinction - a slight change in the environment, such as the island becoming lighter, would enable the whole dark coloured population to be wiped out by predators. If such a process had been happening on a large scale we would expect to find that many species have become extinct and this is exactly what history demonstrates. In other words natural selection tends towards genetic death and not to the development of a more complex species.

If we project this backwards, from an evolutionist's point of view, this means that the amoeba-like creatures from which we have all evolved must have had an infinitely richer and more varied gene pool than our own - clearly an untenable point of view!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Hank Kepanke
"untenable" is a faithless word. Your choice to use it in defense of a creation theory is another interesting contradiction don't you think?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Evolution and God

Veritas
Sure hank!


untenable
  Use Untenable in a sentence
un·ten·a·ble
[uhn-ten-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible.
2.
not fit to be occupied, as an apartment, house, etc.
Origin:
1640–50; un-1  + tenable

Related forms
un·ten·a·bil·i·ty, un·ten·a·ble·ness, noun

Synonyms
1. baseless, groundless, unsound, weak, questionable. - www.dictionary.com
12
Loading...