It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What If God wanted evolution?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
If God really allowed us to evolve, would that satisfy the evolution theorists? I have been thiking about that for a long time. and I think it might be a theory that makes sence in both ends Although I know Evolutionists will try to refute it wich is fine everyone is entitled to their opinion. Think about it. Wich also brings me to my next point I dont know anyone who believes in creation wich refers to it as a theory. Scientist have tagged it a "creation theory" because thats what they do with events that they cant explain.

Maybe The story in the story in the bible is a representation wich makes sence But maybe The big bang theory really happened but only because God let it happen and then evolution went on from that point Life cannot just appear what if God created a single cell that still creation. and who knows maybe adam was the 1st man to "evolve" to a full human and maybe had a connection with God who knows maybe the story from the bible takes off after evolution. after all wouldnt a cell have to crawl out of the soil and evolve to something else..didnt Adam come from soil?

Maybe Evolution did happen But what if God Let it happen.




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Well... Sorry to have to let you know this, but you're not the first person to think of this.

There's a term for it: Theistic Evolution. The concept is not new, and I suppose, given that ID opponent Ken Miller is a theisitic evolutionist, and more or less the poster child for an organiztion like the NCSE, the idea enjoys a degree of mainstream acceptance. Though I suspect some atheistic scientists likely look down on Miller for what they consider to be 'straddling the fence.' Of course this is just speculation.

But in any case... there is a term for what you are proposing and it's called Theistic Evolution.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Just because "it works" doesn't mean we will accept it. The earth is flat, hey, I can't tell the difference, therefore it is!


You have to have proof to back up an arguement with evolutionists. We can provide you with tons of facts, fossil records, hard evidence which you can literally hold in your hand, and see for yourself... were as creationists have a belief, from a book. There's nothing to show other than writing on the page. I think people should look at ancient books like the internet. Dumb people will post things online thinking they actually know something, but they have no credibility, and are just that, dumb. People 2000+ years ago didn't know the world around them, and weren't as intelligent, why take their word for it?

I will believe in Creation, as soon as you can show me it's real. If you can't show me, I won't believe. I work the same way with everything.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Yes I know that you can show proof and ofcourse that tehre are fossils and bones but evolution still a theory cause it hasnt been fully explained how we came to be. Evolutionist believe we came from apes...where is the proof? its the missing link isnt? but if its missing does it exsist? is there really proof? or does it just rheotorically exists? liek we supposed to just believe that exists...wouldn't believing In God be kind of teh same thing? just believe cause you knwo its there?

science calls it theory Others call it faith

i think the fact that you just supposed to believe in teh THEORY of evolution is just as far fetched as believeing in creation by sceince trains of thought. just beieveing that a missing link really exsists sounds to me a little like faith.

besides wasnt there some proof or rumours that darwin made the whole theory of evolution up just for kicks or something?

but thats not what I'm arguing what I'm asking is if god let evolution happen would that satisfy evolutionists? theres as much proof for creation as there is for evolution.

Besides dont scientists sometimes get things wrong? I remember for the longest time scientists being sure of the fact that dinosours were reptiles...then they really found out dinosours were more close to birds than reptiles? maybe something is wrong in their calculation or analisys dont forget carbon testing is not as accurate as people think. So scientists can be wrong and change their theory all the time.

creation has never really changed its story that much.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
The missing link. Hell, there is enough to show for in evolution of ape to man. There's enough similiar characteristics, and there's enough of slight change fossils to prove it correct.

www.bible.ca...

We're pretty much looking for the middle one... which can relatively be seen in swamp-preserved bodies. Maybe we have found "the missing link" and just don't realize we have it all. You can clearly see the changes needed. Believing in God is much different than believing evolution. There are many ways to show evolution. There are no ways to show God.

Darwin made it up for kicks... right... and the moon is made of cheese.



is if god let evolution happen would that satisfy evolutionists?

SHOW ME. We don't compromise. I'll believe in creation as soon as somebody can prove it to me, without using faries, myths, and dreams. Considering that we beleive life can be made under the right circumnstances, and therefore there is no God, I don't think adding some random piece into it with no evidence would fly with my crew.




theres as much proof for creation as there is for evolution.

I have time. Please show me the proofs of creation, considering that I've never heard or seen them.

Quick question, have you ever read a text book?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I found this article wich i find it relevant...

creationsafaris.com...

here is the opening paragraph... Two weeks ago in this column (Aug. 13), Mr. Kenneth Green read from the envelope and proclaimed, "And the winner is...Darwin!" His commentary, however, presented some of the best reasons why Darwin's Theory of Evolution cannot possibly be true. We agree on one thing: it will be a "wild ride" if Darwinism continues to shape policy. It already has been a wild ride, with a 140 years of Darwinian experiments like communism, Naziism, "survival of the fittest" capitalism, racism, and eugenics. Yes, Darwin won. But the category was: "Worst Theory in the History of Science."





The missing link. Hell, there is enough to show for in evolution of ape to man. There's enough similiar characteristics, and there's enough of slight change fossils to prove it correct.
www.bible.ca...


so if we evolved from ape to man why are there still apes around? if we evolved from apes than it means that apes were the weaker species...natural selection, survival of the fittest? wouldnt apes be extinct? but instead there are many species of apes...why arent we seeing them evolve? I mean darwin also sai devolution never stops. i dont see any apes evolving to humans this day or even apes becomign extinct over time. if anythign theres probably as many apes as humans.

heres another paragraph to that article to leave you thinking

"Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most efficient system known to man."



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There is no god, if man was created in god image, there would be no human evolution and since its pretty clear there was human evolution. Thats conclusive proof god or at the the religions view of god doesnt exist.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
agree flyer.


however lets say "gawd" exist, why so quite, why not be like HEY - in a boomin' voice, or maybe a sean connery voice, or something like that.


"I am watching you!!!!"
"behave"
"thats wrong"
"look what I can do"


but no sadly, no.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dvd500
so if we evolved from ape to man why are there still apes around?

'Ape' in this sense of the word means 'non-human primate' and doesn't necessarily refer to living apes. It's meant to imply common ancestry with a primate, that would for all intents and purposes be called an ape, but doesn't mean 'extant ape.'



[edit on 25-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   


so if we evolved from ape to man why are there still apes around? if we evolved from apes than it means that apes were the weaker species...natural selection, survival of the fittest? wouldnt apes be extinct? but instead there are many species of apes...why arent we seeing them evolve? I mean darwin also sai devolution never stops. i dont see any apes evolving to humans this day or even apes becomign extinct over time. if anythign theres probably as many apes as humans.

Like mattison said, many animals are closely related. Think of all the different apes there are... only one of those evolved into us, so of course there are still going to be apes.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   


Like mattison said, many animals are closely related. Think of all the different apes there are... only one of those evolved into us, so of course there are still going to be apes.


Some members of the Scientific comunity also argue through DNA evidence (not fossil records) that there are about 223 bacterial genes That Humans Acquired not through Evolution or vertically through the tree of life....

Quote from Another Site:
"A new study demonstrates that humans have relatively few, if any, genes passed directly from bacteria during evolution. Fewer than 50 human genes may have been transferred from bacteria to vertebrates at some point in time"
Source: www.genomenewsnetwork.org...

This discovery was made after the HGP "Human Genome project" made its findings public. The HGP was the scientific group that studies the human DNA. Human Genome Project: www.genome.gov...

Off topic:
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) is funded annually by Congressional appropriation. Every year, the President submits a budget request for the entire federal government to Congress, which then conducts hearings on that budget request.

Getting back to topic:
Im Just trying to point out that fossil records alone do not explain in full the science of evolution...with the growing DNA sequencing technologies & discoveries scientists are understanding more and more about our past not though visual analisys of bones but DNA study!

How did Man acquire these 223 enigmatic genes?

Some Scientists beleive:
At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!

In my opininon people should not only rely on fossil records to prove a point... thats old technology
DNA is whats at the door now.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
GOD DID IT.


No. Evolution.


and yes, deny fossil records, and believe in something with absolutely no proof at all, instead of something you can hold in your hand, God did it.




[edit on 28-8-2006 by alpha_omega]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by alpha_omega
GOD DID IT.

No. Evolution.

and yes, deny fossil records, and believe in something with absolutely no proof at all, instead of something you can hold in your hand, God did it.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by alpha_omega]


Umm? DNA is hard evidence no? or is DNA something made up?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by a1ex
Some members of the Scientific comunity also argue through DNA evidence (not fossil records) that there are about 223 bacterial genes That Humans Acquired not through Evolution or vertically through the tree of life....

I've heard about this... though not in the mainstream science community. I've only heard it offered as 'proof' that humans were genetically engineered by aliens though. Got any links?


Quote from Another Site:
"A new study demonstrates that humans have relatively few, if any, genes passed directly from bacteria during evolution. Fewer than 50 human genes may have been transferred from bacteria to vertebrates at some point in time"
Source: www.genomenewsnetwork.org...

It's hard to know what exactly to make of this. My first reaction is too simply say "So?" I don't think that evolution postulates that humans should be receiving any genes passed "directly from bacteria." It woud certainly postulate that humans receive genes from other primates directly, but not directly from bacteria.



How did Man acquire these 223 enigmatic genes?

Some Scientists beleive:
At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

While not the norm, there certainly is a precedent for bacteria passing genes on to eukaryotes. Agrobacterium has a penchant for this activity and is exploited quite heavily by those who genetically engineer plants. While not a bacteria, chagas is also known to insert genetic information into the host genome. It's somewhat atypical with respect to bacteria, but certainly not without precedent.


223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!

Hmmm... not sure how that figure was arrived at.... Assuming 3.0 x 10^9, bases in the human genome, and assuming only a 1% difference, which is 3.0 X 10^7 bases, taking 2/3 of this number - 20,000,000/223 yields genes that are 89,000 bases in length... not typical of a gene... gene are usually between say 1000 and 3000 bases.

How did you come up with this "223 genes is the difference.... " Stuff?


In my opininon people should not only rely on fossil records to prove a point... thats old technology
DNA is whats at the door now.

The modern ToE does in fact incorporate DNA evidence into its theories and ideas.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
When science is used to investigate evolution, science finds a bunch of huge holes wich instead of proving somethign it disproves it. Maybe thats why evolution is still called a THEORY.


Quick question, have you ever read a text book?


Well Alpha if you stop reading books written in the 50s and actually begin to do real hard research you'll also find out that top scienctists are starting to really debunk Darwin. and this are scientists in teh 21st century using proper techniques, Darwin's technique was more like, "oh my this looks like this MAYBE because this and this happens So EVOLUTION MUST BE TRUE!!!" Good Scientific Work Darwin



Does everyone know why We have Darwin Awards?htttp://www.darwinawards.com/ Because in the true light of modern science evolution is found to be a big scientific blunder. And people still eat it up.

Do you still believe everything your mom and dad tell also?

[edit on 29-8-2006 by dvd500]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
If God designed us, and evolution, and made evolution because he wanted us, and all life to evolve, then its no longer evolution, and is instead intelligent design.

Right?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!

Hmmm... not sure how that figure was arrived at.... Assuming 3.0 x 10^9, bases in the human genome, and assuming only a 1% difference, which is 3.0 X 10^7 bases, taking 2/3 of this number - 20,000,000/223 yields genes that are 89,000 bases in length... not typical of a gene... gene are usually between say 1000 and 3000 bases.

How did you come up with this "223 genes is the difference.... " Stuff?


Yes I stand corrected I cannot say 223 genes is the difference as the Exact number of genes in the human Genome is still unknown. (some estimate 20,000 to 25,000)

Clearly, gene predictions will have to be verified by labor-intensive work in the laboratory before the scientific community can reach any real consensus

Until then time and intel computing power are our only friends. (unless AMD catches on)

Im Glad the ToE includes DNA evidence, I just wished everyone did when trying to debate evoution vs creationism...people that argue using only fossil evidence are missing on the big picture and are probably behind in technology.

Now for some trivia:

which skeletton/fossils closely resemble men (aka you and me)
which animal/insect blood type closely resembles humans?
Which animal/insect/bacterial DNA closely resembles humans?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dvd500
When science is used to investigate evolution, science finds a bunch of huge holes wich instead of proving somethign it disproves it. Maybe thats why evolution is still called a THEORY.

Yes, it is a THEORY. Although, it's surprising that you take the presence of God as being a fact. He, creationism, and intelligent design, are also theories. If you won't believe in a THEORY, then why do you believe in God?


Originally posted by dvd500
Well Alpha if you stop reading books written in the 50s and actually begin to do real hard research you'll also find out that top scienctists are starting to really debunk Darwin. and this are scientists in teh 21st century using proper techniques, Darwin's technique was more like, "oh my this looks like this MAYBE because this and this happens So EVOLUTION MUST BE TRUE!!!" Good Scientific Work Darwin



In response... a creationist would say:
"oh my this looks like this MAYBE have been created by god, because this and this are too complex to happen naturally So GOD MUST BE TRUE!!!"
What Darwin's theory is... just happens to be a collection of data which is pieced together to show a bigger picture. That bigger picture, is evolution. At least Evolution has pieces of evidence, and a fair amount of it. What proof do you have that God created anything, other than your own beliefs? Oh that's right, I've been asking that same question on this forum for about 2 weeks and NO one has answered, because there is none!



Originally posted by dvd500
Does everyone know why We have Darwin Awards?htttp://www.darwinawards.com/ Because in the true light of modern science evolution is found to be a big scientific blunder. And people still eat it up.

Darwin Awards, are for people who died because they couldn't survive. They did something so stupid, that their death is considered natural selection. You're reason for it makes no sense, what-so-ever.


Originally posted by dvd500
Do you still believe everything your mom and dad tell also?

I am a liberal, pacifist, atheist, who grew up going to church for about 15 years, and hearing that my parents are voting "Republican" in elections. In other words, I don't believe much my parents say.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Evolution is real. Likewise the way God..or this King created the earth. the bible shouldn't be taken literal all the time.
They say God's time & our's are different. Maybe what he took 7 days to do, we see it as billions of years? Hmm...makes sense?
Maybe he didn't command it to be so by actually using his mouth, but with a team, giving orders with his mouth to convey his idea & actually helped, or rather did it, seeing that he initialized it. And what we see are years of slow, formation. It could very well be the same thing.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by sdrawkcab]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
“Is consciousness the effect of a transcendent cause (God creates us) or the cause of a transcendent effect (We create God)?"
...
“If God could create a universe that evolves,” said the seventh persona, “Then why not a universe that could evolve a God who creates?” - Better Angels by Howard V. Hendrix

Theories?
Arguments?




top topics



 
0

log in

join