Evolution deniers are an insult to the deity they worship

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
You guys know that the "young earth" believers are not really the majority of Christians, right? If one believes in a God, then one should also believe that this God created an orderly universe with a set of natural laws. F=MA. It always has and always will (quantum physics notwithstanding.) I cannot see why evolution cannot also be one of those natural laws created in an ordered universe. IIR, the Bible does say something about one day to God being like thousands of years to man. Believing in the Bible and in evolution are not mutually exclusive.




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
You guys know that the "young earth" believers are not really the majority of Christians, right?


I never claimed that they were.


If one believes in a God, then one should also believe that this God created an orderly universe with a set of natural laws. F=MA. It always has and always will (quantum physics notwithstanding.) I cannot see why evolution cannot also be one of those natural laws created in an ordered universe. IIR, the Bible does say something about one day to God being like thousands of years to man. Believing in the Bible and in evolution are not mutually exclusive.


Exactly the point I'm trying to convey. I wish more people could see it this way.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


Fair enough. I just get annoyed when I see someone point out a young earther and go on about how stupid Christians are. Carry on.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 




Or more sensibly in my opinion the system was made to work as a whole. The animals need plants to survive and the plants need the animals to survive. Single cell organisms cannot think or know fear, they are like little robots that serve different purposes in order to keep the system as a whole going. The idea that they evolved to protect themselves from others that have evolved is a circular argument.

Why did the first one evolve again and why didn't they all evolve if they are smart enough to think that banding together to evolve was a good idea. The scientific law of entropy is also always at play. Order cannot come from chaos without intervention.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





If one believes in a God, then one should also believe that this God created an orderly universe with a set of natural laws.





Believing in the Bible and in evolution are not mutually exclusive.



I believe in the God of the bible.

The question here is what one considers evolution.

An observed slight variation of fruit flies, or an unobserved leap of creatures from one species to the next?


To believe in the God of the bible, requires belief in the bible. If the creation story is false then so is the premise of the God of Genesis.


Why would it be impossible for a Creator to create the framework of the animal and plant kingdoms?





edit on 9-12-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

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.


I don't appreciate straw man arguments. If you are willing to respond than please respond to my point. Why the sudden bursts of new species in the fossil record. Insulting people is no way to make a point. You have not given a "rational" explanation of any thing to this point so please don't resort to name calling it only makes you look foolish.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





If one believes in a God, then one should also believe that this God created an orderly universe with a set of natural laws.





Believing in the Bible and in evolution are not mutually exclusive.



I believe in the God of the bible.

The question here is what one considers evolution.

An observed slight variation of fruit flies, or an unobserved leap of creatures from one species to the next?


To believe in the God of the bible, requires belief in the bible.


Why would it be impossible for a Creator to create the framework of the animal and plant kingdoms?







I don't follow your point. What I am saying is that it is not against the Bible to think that God created and used a natural law such as evolution to get to humankind. God uses physics to keep the planets in orbit, yes?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
hey Glass, sorry for my previous post, I must admit I've just read your last post I have commented on. Things like "we were told what to do" is something I don't agree with, especially if it is religion related


reading more what you have to say makes me agree with your thoughts.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

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.


That is how I put it to some more of my evangelical associates. If you believe in an eternal God, who always was and always will be, who can see the past and future at the same time, you believe in a God that exists out of time. Trying to nail him down on a specific time line does not make sense in that context.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by Glass
 

Or more sensibly in my opinion the system was made to work as a whole. The animals need plants to survive and the plants need the animals to survive. Single cell organisms cannot think or know fear, they are like little robots that serve different purposes in order to keep the system as a whole going. The idea that they evolved to protect themselves from others that have evolved is a circular argument.


Evolution is not dependant on the thinking of the single celled organisms. They don't have to imagine new ways of protecting themselves. The ones which are better suited to survive will survive, the ones who are not are more likely to be eaten.



Why did the first one evolve again and why didn't they all evolve if they are smart enough to think that banding together to evolve was a good idea. The scientific law of entropy is also always at play. Order cannot come from chaos without intervention.


Why did the first one evolve? Because of the way DNA works. When an organism reproduces, the DNA self-replicates, ie creates a copy of itself. The copy that it creates is not exact however, there are small, usually insignificant random "errors" (mutations) which occur in this self replication. Those mutations are then tested by natural selection: if the mutation is beneficial, organisms with the mutation will go on to reproduce, passing the mutation along to further generations. Of course many mutations which have little to no effect are also passed on, which contributes to the diversity of life. Add up thousands of these mutations and the result is an organism that is radically different from the original.

"Why didn't they all evolve" is the wrong question; why didnt they all evolve the same way? There isn't a single path of evolution, just like there isn't a single path to follow in your own life. Evolving to a multicellular organism is one possibility, but there are ways for single celled organisms to thrive. Just like how we don't all grow up to eventually become doctors.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by Glass

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.


I don't appreciate straw man arguments. If you are willing to respond than please respond to my point. Why the sudden bursts of new species in the fossil record. Insulting people is no way to make a point. You have not given a "rational" explanation of any thing to this point so please don't resort to name calling it only makes you look foolish.


I'm sorry if I have offended you, but I don't think I called you any names. It wasn't my intention to insult you, merely observing that there are a lot of people in this thread who don't fully understand the concept of evolution.

That said, it's not my duty to educate anyone. There are plenty of resources out there that you can look up if you wish to learn about evolution in further detail. I will continue to provide explanations to the best of my knowledge but I would rather not go digging for proof to every little question. I hope you understand.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





I don't follow your point. What I am saying is that it is not against the Bible to think that God created and used a natural law such as evolution to get to humankind. God uses physics to keep the planets in orbit, yes?




The bible says that God created animals according to their kind.

If He didn't do that, then what the bible says is false.

There would be room for pre programmed variations within a kind.


As far as evolution.

If we are talking the primordial soup to man theory, that would be contrary to the bible.

If we are talking Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit fly experiment relating to genetics, and you want to call that evolution, well, it is observed. You can choose to call it evolution, but the fruit fly remains in its "kind" and the bible does not conflict with the observation.



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

Originally posted by begoodbeesWhy the sudden bursts of new species in the fossil record.


If you could provide an example of what you mean perhaps I could elaborate. I know that the fossil record is not complete. Our understanding of many things is not yet complete. And it may not be possible to recover fossils of every organism that has ever existed.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 





It wasn't my intention to insult you, merely observing that there are a lot of people in this thread who don't fully understand the concept of evolution.


That is exactly your intention.

It is made clear by your inflammatory OP.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





I don't follow your point. What I am saying is that it is not against the Bible to think that God created and used a natural law such as evolution to get to humankind. God uses physics to keep the planets in orbit, yes?




The bible says that God created animals according to their kind.

If He didn't do that, then what the bible says is false.

There would be room for pre programmed variations within a kind.


As far as evolution.

If we are talking the primordial soup to man theory, that would be contrary to the bible.

If we are talking Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit fly experiment relating to genetics, and you want to call that evolution, well, it is observed. You can choose to call it evolution, but the fruit fly remains in its "kind" and the bible does not conflict with the observation.



The bible says God created this, that and the other...but doesn't detail the process. The bible left that open for us to discover.

I see nothing in the statement "God created animals according to their kind" that conflicts with evolution. It merely says God created different kinds of animals. I'm saying that he created those animals through evolution. You say he could not have done so. How did he create the animals then?
edit on 9/12/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by Glass

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.


I don't appreciate straw man arguments. If you are willing to respond than please respond to my point. Why the sudden bursts of new species in the fossil record. Insulting people is no way to make a point. You have not given a "rational" explanation of any thing to this point so please don't resort to name calling it only makes you look foolish.


I'm sorry if I have offended you, but I don't think I called you any names. It wasn't my intention to insult you, merely observing that there are a lot of people in this thread who don't fully understand the concept of evolution.

That said, it's not my duty to educate anyone. There are plenty of resources out there that you can look up if you wish to learn about evolution in further detail. I will continue to provide explanations to the best of my knowledge but I would rather not go digging for proof to every little question. I hope you understand.


I thing you are confusing education and indoctrination. If there were anything but circumstantial evidence out there to support evolution than there would be no debate. I don't need educating. The purpose of me responses and questions are to show you and whoever else cares that spontaneous evolution from its core is a flawed theory at best.

A cell evolved to protect itself from other cells that evolved. That is a circular argument. Some how these little cells were able to think and band together like little militias on against the other. Now tell me if you hadn't been indoctrinated your whole life you would really believe that.

The whole theory of evolution is circular, we evolve to survive to evolve to survive. What is the point? I know it is hard to cast out a lifetime of indoctrination I used to be a christian.

Also an ignorant theist I believe is a name and an insult.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees

I don't appreciate straw man arguments. If you are willing to respond than please respond to my point. Why the sudden bursts of new species in the fossil record. Insulting people is no way to make a point. You have not given a "rational" explanation of any thing to this point so please don't resort to name calling it only makes you look foolish.


please let me go on this...

this bursts occurred not on single cell organism but only on more complex ones. Radiation bursts from supernovae made anomalies in the genes, mutants were born and they had to adopt.
It also didn't happened over one night rather than few thousand years..

now think about our technological explosion over the last 200 years.
it all began with inventing of the electricity.. the first 50 years it was practically useless, and here we are now.

the same with the species bursts, most of them followed a big extinction of live forms, genetic mutants unable to survive, but those who adapted had more space to expand



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


I know the theory. The problem is it does not make any sense and there is no real evidence to back it up. You are just as bad as the religious fanatics who will not cast away false beliefs and customs even if you prove to them from their own book that they are wrong.

"Because that's how DNA works is not an answer to the question." DNA is very complex and it came from where. Did it evolve on its own? DNA is not alive so how could it evolve on its own? A cell cant reproduce without DNA so it is a very flawed theory at best. The chicken and the egg.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I've always wondered what God eats. And if he doesn't eat..why did he make it so important (to life)

Also, why does God make everything so hard for his creations.. (I mean there's so many folks that have a hard time putting A + B + C and still can't tie their shoes)

Why does man have answers to the above, but God doesn't (or won't answer) ?
edit on 9-12-2012 by RUFFREADY because: no kitty !! Thats my pot pie!!



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 





How did he create the animals then?



Brother, if I had the answer to that I would be a god.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join