Evolution deniers are an insult to the deity they worship

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
As many of us know, the denial of evolution is a prevailing theme in religion. Many devout theists believe that the Earth was created in its current state, with all creatures created in their existing forms, unable to adapt to changes in their environment. Creationists believe that creatures were specifically designed for the environment they inhabit.

I do not deny the possibility of a creative intelligence which formed the universe, however to say that this deity is incapable of creating organisms which have the ability to adapt to their environment, even changing their form entirely over the course of millions of years, is an insult. You are placing limits on a being which is supposed to be all powerful.

If this being is truly all powerful and intelligent, would it not make more sense that it would create creatures that are dynamic and adaptive, rather than fixed in a particular form?




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


I have no use for religions or gods, and think that whether or not one exists is irrelevant.

But I would imagine that if one were to exist, it probably wouldn't care what anyone thinks or believes.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, but I simply take what is stated in the Bible and other sources to see the excluded middle. If you can find the higher axiom, and it unifies both sides of the mirror of debate, you have found the answer. Here it is.

Involution and Evolution

Higher truth always unifies paradox and shows both sides to be true. The thing to remember is this: Evolution is not a cause, but a result. Design and programming of Word is the cause.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So then, how do we rectify this understanding of Word (information) being the primary means of producing the image of reality? We recognize the one that is within us all doing the change.

1 Colossians 1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

More of my thoughts can be found in the link below (Signature).




Originally posted by Glass
As many of us know, the denial of evolution is a prevailing theme in religion. Many devout theists believe that the Earth was created in its current state, with all creatures created in their existing forms, unable to adapt to changes in their environment. Creationists believe that creatures were specifically designed for the environment they inhabit.

I do not deny the possibility of a creative intelligence which formed the universe, however to say that this deity is incapable of creating organisms which have the ability to adapt to their environment, even changing their form entirely over the course of millions of years, is an insult. You are placing limits on a being which is supposed to be all powerful.

If this being is truly all powerful and intelligent, would it not make more sense that it would create creatures that are dynamic and adaptive, rather than fixed in a particular form?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Higher truth always unifies paradox and shows both sides to be true. The thing to remember is this: Evolution is not a cause, but a result. Design and programming of Word is the cause.


I certainly agree with you.

Denying evolution's role in creation is like denying the paintbrush's role in painting.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


I believe in the Creator. To me, it matters not how he brought us about. There is no need to confirm or deny His process. We have been told what is expected of us. The rest is mere curiosity.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Higher truth always unifies paradox and shows both sides to be true. The thing to remember is this: Evolution is not a cause, but a result. Design and programming of Word is the cause.


I certainly agree with you.

Denying evolution's role in creation is like denying the paintbrush's role in painting.


Right. If you look at the link I provided, baptism is the immersion of the soul into reality. We are to 'rise' to new life. This is the point. Involution and Evolution. Both are true, yet only one is a cause.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
adapting to an environment makes logical sense. God gave them that ability so they can survive and not go extinct.

it gets colder, an animal grows a thicker coat. it gets warmer, it sheds.

but even then, there's still evidence that every animal on earth was placed in its current location or face death.

for, example, you can't put a hippo in the arctic tundra. it'll die. and you can keep putting hippos in the arctic for the next billion years and the result will be the same. they'll die.

but according to evolutionists, they should grow shiny fur coats.

transforming from an ape into a human being is not adapting. it's changing species.

evolutionist conveniently ignore the crocodile paradox. according to them they claim they are 250 million years old and have remained unchanged.

then why aren't they warping around the universe and doing advanced mathematics.

instead they live in swamps, scavenging on rotten meat and getting killed by toothless hillbillies every week on the discovery channel.

did evolution take a holiday when it was the crocodiles turn. or did the crocodile say, you know what, i like to wallow in methane gas and rotten vegetables.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
This theoretical all powerful God should also be able to make a stable environment for any period of time he chooses in which evolution would not be necessary, right?

That being said I am not religious but do believe in God. I believe he did make creatures able to adapt and change to react to the preprogrammed variances in our environment. In the creation story God started simple and worked his way up to man. The same way that man started with a wheel cart and gradually improved it over time until we wind up with the modern vehicles that we have now.

I don't disbelieve evolution so much as I disbelieve spontaneous evolution. Just the same way I would disbelieve that the wheel cart evolved into a Ferrari 459 in order to adapt to the autobahn.

Adapting to environmental variances is a lot different than an amoeba slowly becoming a human. If it were all about survival life would have most likely remained in the single cell (or maybe something slightly more complex) form because that is the form most likely to survive any and everything that our environment can throw at it.

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
for, example, you can't put a hippo in the arctic tundra. it'll die. and you can keep putting hippos in the arctic for the next billion years and the result will be the same. they'll die.

but according to evolutionists, they should grow shiny fur coats.


You're mistaken, evolution does not happen instantaneously. If you were to move those hippos to colder climates which wouldn't kill them outright, the offspring of those hippos who are better suited to their environments would have a greater chance of survival, which could eventually lead to furry hippos.



transforming from an ape into a human being is not adapting. it's changing species.


The apes began to realise that their hands could be used to make and use tools. Reliance on tools for survival meant that apes which were more intelligent had a better chance to survive and reproduce. That is an adaptation. Apes which do not use tools still exist because in some environments they were already adapted well enough to survive without using tools.



evolutionist conveniently ignore the crocodile paradox. according to them they claim they are 250 million years old and have remained unchanged.

then why aren't they warping around the universe and doing advanced mathematics.


Crocodiles never had to learn how to use tools, much less travel through space or do math to survive. They're an example of evolution doing its job, they evolved perfectly into their niche. You can't always gauge how advanced an organism is on its intelligence.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


thank you for your opinions but do you have any thing to back up your statements. there is in the fossil record several instances of bursts of new species all at once. I have yet to hear a good explanation for this. If the apes became human then why are there still orangutangs. I guess some of them didn't want to evolve?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
As many of us know, the denial of evolution is a prevailing theme in religion. Many devout theists believe that the Earth was created in its current state, with all creatures created in their existing forms, unable to adapt to changes in their environment. Creationists believe that creatures were specifically designed for the environment they inhabit.

I do not deny the possibility of a creative intelligence which formed the universe, however to say that this deity is incapable of creating organisms which have the ability to adapt to their environment, even changing their form entirely over the course of millions of years, is an insult. You are placing limits on a being which is supposed to be all powerful.

If this being is truly all powerful and intelligent, would it not make more sense that it would create creatures that are dynamic and adaptive, rather than fixed in a particular form?


If they think the world was created in its current state, they are totally wrong. In the beginning when God created Earth, it was a whole lot more beautiful than it is today. Animals can adapt to their surroundings, but there is a huge difference between adaptations and/or variations within each species, and animals changing from one thing to something completely different, which is a lot of what evolution is about.

And for that matter, why did you not just ask why He didn't create the environment in each section of the planet so it is perfect for each type of organism that inhabits it? I think this is just more of an attempt to make a debate (we'll just call it a discussion) out of nothing.

It is more "insulting" to the Creator to say that He would need to take millions of years to finally getting His creation just right, than it is to say He got it right the first time.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 



What is insulting, is to not give credit to an inventor for his inventions.


Evolution is designed to cast doubt on a Creator.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 





As many of us know, the denial of evolution is a prevailing theme in religion. Many devout theists believe that the Earth was created in its current state, with all creatures created in their existing forms, unable to adapt to changes in their environment. Creationists believe that creatures were specifically designed for the environment they inhabit.


I do not know any person professing a belief in the Bible that believes anything written in this paragraph. The Bible clearly states the Earth and its creatures were not created in the state we find them today. There was the Fall of Mankind for one. Plus the Deluge. Regardless, your statements: "...current state, with all creatures created in their existing forms, unable to adapt to changes in their environment" and, "Creationists believe that creatures were specifically designed for the environment they inhabit." is patently false.

I also know of no one who denies in adaptation. Growing hair in response to cold weather does not make a new species.
edit on 9-12-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
This theoretical all powerful God should also be able to make a stable environment for any period of time he chooses in which evolution would not be necessary, right?


In theory, if he were all powerful, then that would be possible. But would it be desirable? An unchanging, stable environment would only hold ones interest for so long, and it wouldn't lead to anything but merely exist for the sake of existing.



Adapting to environmental variances is a lot different than an amoeba slowly becoming a human. If it were all about survival life would have most likely remained in the single cell (or maybe something slightly more complex) form because that is the form most likely to survive any and everything that our environment can throw at it.

Any thoughts?


If you look at it that way, an amoeba turning into a human, it looks extremely far-fetched, but the steps in between add up.

Single celled organisms started to cooperate, joining together into multicellular organisms, this would give them a huge advantage over other single celled organisms, so other multicellular forms would have to emerge to keep the balance.

I sometimes look at it in terms of an arms race. You make a club, it makes you dangerous to anyone without a club, so they follow suit, then someone makes a spear that can kill you from beyond the reach of your club, so you throw rocks at them and keep away from their spear, make a sling to throw rocks more effectively...it continues to escalate until you're firing missiles at each other.

But of course making weapons isn't the only way to ensure the survival of a species. Plants aren't predatory, they survive by reproducing faster than things can eat them. Some have even devised a clever way of reproducing by being eaten; bearing fruit and such. Pigs have ensured their survival by being utterly delicious and forming a sort of domestic symbiotic relationship with humans.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by Glass
 


thank you for your opinions but do you have any thing to back up your statements. there is in the fossil record several instances of bursts of new species all at once. I have yet to hear a good explanation for this. If the apes became human then why are there still orangutangs. I guess some of them didn't want to evolve?


Looks like I'm drawing a swarm of theists with a lack of understanding of the subject...

I've tried to explain why "lower forms" still exist. Its not that they didn't want to evolve, but rather they didn't need to.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Glass
 


What is insulting, is to not give credit to an inventor for his inventions.


Evolution is designed to cast doubt on a Creator.



I don't have any valid reason to doubt the creative intelligence responsible for this universe, I merely see it differently.

You see an inventor who hand-crafted life, I see a programmer who created a system in which life creates itself. Which is more powerful?
edit on 9/12/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by Glass
 


I believe in the Creator. To me, it matters not how he brought us about. There is no need to confirm or deny His process. We have been told what is expected of us. The rest is mere curiosity.


...
"We have been told what is expected of us"
...

who told you this?? your religion??? God????

religious rules are made to help us live with each other, not to kill and get killed in revenge, not to steal and be punished for this... be good and you will go to haven is a promise the same as be good and the santa clause will bring you some presents... nothing more

but if it makes you comfortable so is it good for me, just stop talking religious please




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeramie
It is more "insulting" to the Creator to say that He would need to take millions of years to finally getting His creation just right, than it is to say He got it right the first time.


What is a year? Merely the amount of time it takes for our Earth to make a full trip around our Sun. Do you think God works in the same time-frame that we do?

They say a day for God is like a thousand of our years. That is probably a low-ball estimate, but it illustrates the point that God doesn't see time as we do.

A million years might look like an extremely long time to our short lives, but for all we know it could be a heartbeat for God.

And its not as if God was hard at work making everything by hand. The way I see it, God only had to set things in motion and watch as they unfold. That, in my opinion, is true power.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrzYma

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by Glass
 


I believe in the Creator. To me, it matters not how he brought us about. There is no need to confirm or deny His process. We have been told what is expected of us. The rest is mere curiosity.


...
"We have been told what is expected of us"
...

who told you this?? your religion??? God????

religious rules are made to help us live with each other, not to kill and get killed in revenge, not to steal and be punished for this... be good and you will go to haven is a promise the same as be good and the santa clause will bring you some presents... nothing more

but if it makes you comfortable so is it good for me, just stop talking religious please



Settle down, this is an open discussion directly related to religion. You're getting off-topic anyways.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 





You see an inventor who hand-crafted life, I see a programmer who created a system in which life creates itself. Which is more powerful?


Yes, procreation.

The programmer created a complex synergistic biosphere.

DNA code was written for organisms according to there kind.

There was definitely room for variety within the written code.





 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def