Evolution versus God

I have not spent much time thinking or reading about evolution. However it seems many people belive there is no God but we have just evolved over a million years from a blob...Anyone belive this?

Anyway in my early search of God I came up with a million questions and thoughts to try to find proof of God within an answer. One was this how can we know something based on nothing we know? My next question was can we imagine a sense basesd on nothing we know(beyond 5 senses). Well the answer is no. Anyway I applied this to evolution if I understand it right for what I saw on Nova was asteroid boom expolsion slow early life form of gook that evolved over a very slow time. Ok well if you have gook and like humans we can not know anything unless its based on experience well how could a blob evolve into having 5 senses?

See what I am saying? Please I would love to hear more from everyone on this. If you doubt God I want to hear from you. If you belive in God ditto. I seem to have found a very valid point but I know nothing about evolution/darwin or little monkey men.

I see what you're saying, and I'll address that first. I think, though, that you've also got some misconceptions about evolution which I'll put in the second part of this message. Please take a look at those as well.


To understand how our senses evolved, you have to understand first that current scientific thought doesn't see them as showing up fully formed the first time. That is to say you didn't have a mom and dad blob give birth to a baby blob with a big eyeball. Instead what happened is that, due to a mutation[1] a blob was born that had a patch of skin that was marginally sensitive to light.[2] Because of the environment the blobs lived in, this sensitivity helped the young blob to survive. Maybe it helped him "see" the predators diving down from the brighter waters above when they blocked the light above the patch of skin, maybe it helped him find food in some way. However, there was something in his environment that made it a good thing to perceive light.

Because our sensitive blob was better able to survive, it grew larger than average and fathered or mothered more children than average. Those of its children who also had this sensitivity to light prospered. Over many generations to follow, this ability to perceive light was refined as the situation warranted it. Perhaps the ability to perceive different wavelengths arose, or the ability to move the patch independant of the tissue around it. A million or ten years latter, you have something that looks very much like a primitive eyeball.

The same would hold true for the other senses: Hearing is just a detailed sensitivity to vibrations. Smell and taste are, basically, chemical detectors, useful to know when you're around food or poison.


[1] While most mutations are, in fact harmful, and most of the rest are at best neutral, we do have evidence that helpful mutations occur from time to time.

[2] For example, you know how you get a tan if you hang out in the sun long enough? Imagine if the nerves that tell your skin "hey, it's bright, put out some melanin to block those UV rays" were miswired and instead connected over to the receptors that detected touch. I'm not saying that's how it happend, but it's an example of how it could.

Originally posted by japike
how could a blob evolve into having 5 senses?

?

Why couldn't it? Single celled organisms do 'chemotaxis', they have receptors in them that lets them detect to varying degrees how much of a certain chemical is around them, and thus they can travel up and down a chemical gradient. Similarly, there are single celled organisms that can do phototaxis, they can detect varying amounts of light and thus move torwards or away from a light source. They have a light senstive pigment spot on them. Why is it immpossible for something that is senseless to, over long spans of time and with great modificiation, to develp senses?

Ok, now that that's done (for now, I'm sure ), I think you have a very common misunderstanding about evolution. Namely, that belief in evolution precludes a belief in God (or gods, even). While the case can be made that evolution (and much of other scientific though) is not compatible with a strictly literal interpretation of the King James Bible, the two disciplines (science and faith) are compatible for most other people.

The conflict arises, usually, because science refuses to acknowledge God. This is due to the constraints of the tool, rather than to any prejudice on the part of its users.

You see, science is a tool, nothing more. It's a way of approaching the physical evidence we have (rocks, fossils, genes, atoms, stars, all that stuff) and trying to understand the physical rules that govern us all. We're told over and over in the bible (and in many other religions' texts) that God is not measureable --We cannot comprehend Him fully, simply because we're too limited-- and because He cannot be measured, science is blind to him. That doesn't mean science says "God doesn't exist," just that there's no physical evidence to prove He exists. Anyone trying to use science to prove or disprove God is rather akin to someone trying to use college-level calculus to prove or disprove English grammar.

With the theory of evolution, we've taken a look at the physical evidence we have and said "This is the best theory we have to explain it. It seems to account for everything we see here, and the predictions we can make with it have been accurate so far." We've progressed a long way beyond Darwinian evolution now, and it's a pretty solid theory at this point.

It should be noted, as well, that the word "theory" has a very different meaning in scientific jargon than it does in every day use. Normally when we use the word theory, it's analogous to "educated guess." It's something we have a feeling, and maybe a small amount of proof, about.
In scientific usage, on the other hand, a "theory" is something that's been tested multiple times, reviewed by many people, and has stood up to that testing. A theory, in scientific jargon, is a fairly solid explanation.

There are a lot of theories in science: the theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetic radiation, etc.

Third, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Evolution may describe how the first living thing became the plethora of animals and plants we have today, but it only talks about how living things change. For the current theory of evolution it doesn't change a thing if that first critter appeared when lighting hit a bit of scummy water, if an alien deliberately seeded it, or if God bent down and set it in the water. That's not to say that there aren't scientific theories on the origins of life, just that those theories are separate from evolution. Right now we're concentrating on abiogenesis (life coming from non-living matter) because we haven't found physical evidence of aliens seeding it, of God walking around placing it, or even of life hitching a ride on a meteor. I can guarantee if we find any size-G footprints, or landing sites, or similar anabacteria on Mars or a comet, the theories are going to be rearraging themselves fairly quickly. As it is, we're going with the one we have the most evidence for.

And even then, it doesn't preclude God. Just because the physical beginnings of life may have been explanable by purely physical means doesn't mean that God hismelf didn't direct the lightning to strike the scummy bit of water at exactly the right time.


Sorry if this seems a bit long and preachy, it'ts just that too often these discussions fall back on misunderstandings and dogma rather than attempting to look for a scientifically verifiable alternative to the current theories.

The way I see it - evolution is the how, God is the why.

Where's the contradiction?

Where does God say in the bible - or any religious text for that matter that he didn't use what we refer to as evolution to create life?

The big trouble, Simon, is the Biblical literalists who take the Genesis account of "God created the universe in 6 days" to mean that it took 144 hours to get to where we were at roughly 4004 BC.

Yeah, but they have no basis for their argument.

The world is older than 6000 years old to all but the most deluded individuals on this planet.

Where does it say in the bible - or any other religious text for that matter that earth is ~6000 years old?

I just ignore these people, no point in enpowering them by taking their opinion (which is based on nothing whatsoever) seriously.

I mean come ooooon...

Right, you and I may not find anything of worth in their arguments, but since I live in the middle of the Midwest in the US, if I try to ignore everyone who's willing to listen to that argument I'd...well, I'd be better off moving to Massachusets

That and I didn't see any use in alienating the OP right off the bat.

So lets make sure we are on the same page.

Your stating that the bible gives no indication of the age of the earth at all?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

*Awaits onslaught of bible verses I've already seen, twisted out of proper context*

Originally posted by japike
I have not spent much time thinking or reading about evolution. However it seems many people belive there is no God but we have just evolved over a million years from a blob...Anyone belive this?

No-one I know of believes this. The thought is that we evolved from a self replicating (set of) organic chemical(s) which formed spontaneously from pre-existing organic compounds found throughout the universe. You might wonder why such compounds form so readily in our universe, but we certainly observe that they do. Those who wish to find evidence of intelligent design should look into why such comounds form so readily.

The concepts behind evolution are realy pretty trivial. Any positive feedback system will evolve to points of intermediate stability due to nonlinearities in nature.

Here's a real simple experiment involving this fundamental principle you can do at home if you have a karaoke machine or some other amplifier/microphone combination. Place the microphone at some set distance from the speaker and turn the system on with the volume high enough to cause feedback. The system will rapidly converge on a single harmonic (or set of them) related to the distance between the speaker and mic. Someone coming along after the fact might look at this set up and marvel at how the tone produced just happens to be supported by the distance between the two. If the distance were different, the tone could not be supported. Surely this is proof of intelligent design! Well, in our case, there is intelligent design, but you didn't design the system to produce the given tone, you simply designed it to produce "a" tone.

But how did this tone form? Even you, the designer of the system need not know how this happens. But, it happens randomly. The amplifier emits noise containing a large spectrum of tones. Those tones that are related in wavelength to the distance between the speaker and mic get "naturally selected". They add up with themselves positively on each pass through the system, forcing the other tones to lower in power in the competition over the fixed available power.

Every fundamental principle of evolution is involved in this simple set up. The "blob" you referred to is the equivalent of the white noise that the speaker produces originally, which is analogous to the organic compounds found to occur naturally in space even in the absence of life.

But, as others here have already noted, evolution does not contradict deities, it only contradicts certain concepts about deities.

Since you already know all the verses,

Whos age do you think is incorrect and what is the correct age of that person?

and or

If its one of the periods where we are told how much time has elapsed such as the time in Egypt or Babylon...what is the correct number?

Why didnt God give us the correct age or time instead of the incorrect one?

Originally posted by jake1997
Whos age do you think is incorrect and what is the correct age of that person?

A better question might be, "where does the Bible say that the geneaologies given are complete"? The Bible uses the terms "father" and "son" loosely. Abraham is often referred to as a father by generations far removed, just as the Messiah is said to be the son of David.

The terms "father" and "son" as used in the Bible imply a blood relationship, but not a single generation.

Of course, these are an issue only for those who take the Bible literally to begin with.

but your taking up a logical fallacy argument.
You are looking for the word "Complete"
I do not see the word "Partial"...
so there is no hair to split.

We cant argue about what it doesnt say. Its neither here nor there
We can only show what it does say, and must assume that is what God wanted us to see, or we start to change the word.

Originally posted by jake1997
but your taking up a logical fallacy argument.
You are looking for the word "Complete"
I do not see the word "Partial"...
so there is no hair to split.

If we cannot objectively conclude whether the lineages in the bible are complete, there is no point in taking either side. Very well said.

Rev 22:18 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen.


Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deu 4:1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, the God of your fathers, giveth you.
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.


God says dont add to it and dont take away. It must be exactly the way He wants it :-)

Originally posted by jake1997
God says dont add to it and dont take away. It must be exactly the way He wants it :-)

I agree, but that doesn't mean that when God says 1000 years is like a day to him and a day like 1000 years that he means a literal 1000 x 365 day period. (2 Peter 3:8) This passage refers to the timelessness of God. In Greek when you say 'xilia xronia' in the or a thousand years in the context of this passage, it just means a long period of time - taking it literally is a mistake.

It also doesn't mean that when God says day, that he means literal 24 hour period.

We won't agree on this so it is pointless for you to try and convince me otherwise, I'm Greek and I know the context in which the word xilia or xilioi is used.

*Edited for excessive quoting. Just got my PM mods, sorry about that.


[edit on 22-11-2005 by Simon_the_byron]

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Simon_the_byron]

Originally posted by jake1997
We cant argue about what it doesnt say. Its neither here nor there
We can only show what it does say, and must assume that is what God wanted us to see, or we start to change the word.

You can assume what you want, which is exactly what you are doing when you calculate the age of the earth using the Bible. It is you who are adding to it, forcing a meaning upon it that you have no idea whether that is the intent or not, and which is not in allignment with the purpose of such lineages.

Ask yourself what is the purpose of these lineages? Is the purpose to show who is an heir to who, or the purpose to establish the age of the earth? If the former, then to use it to establish the age of the earth is an unscripturally intended abuse.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
quote removed to prevent getting popped for quoting LOL

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Simon_the_byron]

Ok...so you didnt answer my questions above simon.
Should I conclude that you do not wish to change your mind even if the bible shows different?

I have a question for you, Jake.

Please forgive me if this comes off as facetious or condescending, it is not intended as such. I'm sneaking the post in between jobs at work and my proofreading sometimes suffers when I do that.

It seems that, from your posts, you're a believer in Archbishop James Ussher's calculation of the age of the Earth? Namely that it's creation can be traced, via the records in Genesis, to nightfall on October 23rd, 4004BC. Is it safe to assume that this date, or one fairly close to it, is your starting point for the universe?

If so, can you understand that those of us who favor a more empirical approach to the world have trouble abandoning our beliefs just on your (or any other relatively anonymous online poster's) say-so?