God Evolved

[Ophiolite]

Do you agree with this thread title?

I have no significant opinion on the thread title, as there is insufficient information upon which to base even a tentative, provisional conclusion.
1. I see insufficient evidence to support the existence of a God.
2. I see too much contradictory evidence for the nature of any such God to be determined.
3. It is, consequently, impossible - at present - to conclude if a God, if one existed, could evolve.

Side note: it would probably be more productive to debate how many angels can fit on a pin head.

 

[miknik5]

I have no significant opinion on the thread title, as there is insufficient information upon which to base even a tentative, provisional conclusion.
1. I see insufficient evidence to support the existence of a God.
2. I see too much contradictory evidence for the nature of any such God to be determined.
3. It is, consequently, impossible - at present - to conclude if a God, if one existed, could evolve.

Side note: it would probably be more productive to debate how many angels can fit on a pin head.

Or maybe more productive to debate spontaneous regeneration on a thread entitled “God evolved”

 

[CherubRam]

Science is based on observation and experimentation. If nothing will evolve in a lab, then Evolution must be a false science; at least for this Universe.

Great is the faith of the Atheist.

 

[miknik5]

Science is based on observation and experimentation. If nothing will evolve in a lab, then Evolution must be a false science; at least for this Universe.

Great is the faith of the Atheist.

How can that be?
Things have evolved/changed over time
Just consider survival of the fittest
However...,one species evolving into another species?


No. This I can’t believe can happen

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God evolved, then He created.

There's nothing in God nor in God's Word that says God evolved. Period.
Just the opposite in fact. It is contrary to all God's Word .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Holy Spirit is a title for Yahwah our Holy Father.

In Scripture, "set apart" / "holy", is an adjective, not a title.
YHVH IS SPIRIT.
Simple.

 

[miknik5]

There's nothing in God nor in God's Word that says God evolved. Period.
Just the opposite in fact. It is contrary to all God's Word .

was the SPIRIT of GOD there from the beginning Jeff?

I don’t know how but CherubRam overlooked the full scripture verse in genesis 1

 

[CherubRam]

There's nothing in God nor in God's Word that says God evolved. Period.
Just the opposite in fact. It is contrary to all God's Word .

Is the word "FORMED" meaningless?

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is the word "FORMED" meaningless?

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

Is English difficult ? If not, why do you not understand this ? (your very own quote)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

However...,one species evolving into another species?

No. This I can’t believe can happen

It's fairly simple, belief shouldn't be an issue. When a population of one species has evolved sufficiently that it's useful to permanently distinguish it from the original population (particularly if they no longer interbreed), we call it a new species. There's no hard-and-fast definition of species, it's not a well-defined scientific term; different fields of science use their own definitions.

Separate breeding populations are clearly different species if they can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but may be categorised as separate species short of that. See Species.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's fairly simple, belief shouldn't be an issue. When a population of one species has evolved sufficiently that it's useful to permanently distinguish it from the original population (particularly if they no longer interbreed), we call it a new species. There's no hard-and-fast definition of species, it's not a well-defined scientific term; different fields of science use their own definitions.

Separate breeding populations are clearly different species if they can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but may be categorised as separate species short of that. See Species.

It is interesting to note that the domestic cat as depicted in Ancient Egyptian art, is exactly the same as our domestic cats today. Do they haven't evolved much in that time. Also, I don't see any evidence of interbreeding between dogs and cats, horses and elephants. Nor do I see evidence of the evolution stages of trees into animals, amoeba into mosquitoes, cockroaches into mice. If evolution happened that way, we should see all the different "inter-species" as they have gradually developed. We don't know exactly how long ago Adam appear on the scene, but even back then, he named all the separate species of animals, and there was an actual snake in the Garden. What did it evolve from?

 

[Ophiolite]

Or maybe more productive to debate spontaneous regeneration on a thread entitled “God evolved”

Excuse me? Do you want to rethink that remark?
1. I imagine you meant spontaneous generation, not - as you wrote - spontaneous regeneration, whatever that is.
2. It is not at all obvious that spontaneous generation has anything whatsoever to do with the evolution of God.
3. If we intend to debate a subject then it is important that we are using correct terminology correctly. That is precisely what I did in my posts that corrected improper use of the phrase spontaneous generation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is interesting to note that the domestic cat as depicted in Ancient Egyptian art, is exactly the same as our domestic cats today. Do they haven't evolved much in that time.

Egyptian mummified cats appear to be mainly variants of the same species as modern domestic cats (Felis Sylvestris Catus). It's only been around 4,000 years, so one wouldn't expect to see significant evolutionary changes (unless there was deliberate selective breeding) . Also, interbreeding with wild cats has 'muddied the waters' a little. See Cats of the Pharaohs.

Also, I don't see any evidence of interbreeding between dogs and cats, horses and elephants. Nor do I see evidence of the evolution stages of trees into animals, amoeba into mosquitoes, cockroaches into mice. If evolution happened that way, we should see all the different "inter-species" as they have gradually developed.

Right - you shouldn't expect to see such things, because that's not how evolution works.

There's no interbreeding between dogs and cats, horses and elephants because they're very different species - they're all placental mammals, but that's about all they have in common; their most recent common ancestor would probably have been around the start of the Paleocene, at least 66 million years ago.

Trees didn't evolve into animals, nor amoeba into mosquitoes, or cockroaches into mice. The common ancestors for all those groups would be way back in time and probably look more like the ameba than anything else. Evolutionary trees can tell you what evolved from which - but it's too big to fit all on one easily readable diagram. But here's a scalable visualisation of the whole caboodle: OneZoom.

We don't know exactly how long ago Adam appear on the scene, but even back then, he named all the separate species of animals, and there was an actual snake in the Garden. What did it evolve from?

Moderns humans (homo sapiens) first appeared around 300-400,000 years ago. Snakes probably evolved from lizards, some time in the Cretaceous (79 to 145 million years ago), losing their limbs in the process (some snakes still have vestigial limb buds and/or remnants of the pelvic girdle).

Bible stories are not reliable guides to the evolution of species.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science is based on observation and experimentation. If nothing will evolve in a lab, then Evolution must be a false science; at least for this Universe.

Great is the faith of the Atheist.

Using this logic, unless you can recreate a murder in a lab, it’ll never be solved.

Great is the gullibility of the theist.

 

[HitchSlap]

How can that be?
Things have evolved/changed over time
Just consider survival of the fittest
However...,one species evolving into another species?


No. This I can’t believe can happen

Of course it happens. It’s well understood at this point in time.
All you have to do is take a moment to look into it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Using this logic, unless you can recreate a murder in a lab, it’ll never be solved.

THAT is exactly how murders are solved. Ask Sherlock ! (Holmes)

 

[miknik5]

Excuse me? Do you want to rethink that remark?
1. I imagine you meant spontaneous generation, not - as you wrote - spontaneous regeneration, whatever that is.
2. It is not at all obvious that spontaneous generation has anything whatsoever to do with the evolution of God.
3. If we intend to debate a subject then it is important that we are using correct terminology correctly. That is precisely what I did in my posts that corrected improper use of the phrase spontaneous generation.

No.

1. I don’t want to rethink that remark

2. and 3. Exactly. It is not at all obvious that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread which is why I am wondering why we would change topic and start debating spontaneous generation/regeneration to begin with


(Which isn’t spontaneous at all)

 

[miknik5]

Of course it happens. It’s well understood at this point in time.
All you have to do is take a moment to look into it.

Do you understand the reason why there even would be a change within a species?

 

[miknik5]

Using this logic, unless you can recreate a murder in a lab, it’ll never be solved.

Great is the gullibility of the theist.

It’s the same method. Backing into the physical evidence that is present. You are proving an effect of an outside action on a living being but it isn’t something rooted in the being that produced this final state

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you understand the reason why there even would be a change within a species?

Of course. The “Selfish Gene” is a good primer on the subject.