Did Jesus create evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Yep.

Nope.

OB is wrong.

There is what is known as "cosmic evolution," which breaks the secular timeline of the universe up into seven stages.

Biological evolution is just one of them.

See Harvard University's chart.

 

[stevevw]

If you refer back to my post #77 I cleared up what my OP meant by evolution. Since there are different definitions depending on the context you use the term. I was relating the idea that God (through the word) still has a hand in the continuation of the universe and he didn't just "set a clock" and let it tick out by itself. Although some would say he did, because he has already predetermined the end.

I think in some ways the the beginning of the universe does have something to do with evolution. If we did get the universe we have we would not have been able to evolve life. As Nobel laureate Professor Weinberg

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope.

OB is wrong.

There is what is known as "cosmic evolution," which breaks the secular timeline of the universe up into seven stages.

Biological evolution is just one of them.

See Harvard University's chart.

That's fine. And you can see Frank Close's book, The Void ...

 

[AV1611VET]

That's fine. And you can see Frank Close's book, The Void ...

Your biography?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your biography?

I guess so! I enjoyed that quip, AV! Good one!

 

[AV1611VET]

How about you guys get your story straight with each other before you try to convince us non-Christians that you've got it right.

Until then, which side are you going to take?

Do you believe ID is creationism now or not?

You asked me a good question and got a good answer.

 

[Lost Witness]

I'll happily believe once I see evidence

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You want Proof? First Believe he's Real.
Once you can Accept that GOD exists, then ask for 'proof",
EVERYTHING didn't just come into existence on it's own,
that's foolishness.

 

[dlamberth]

Until then, which side are you going to take?

Do you believe ID is creationism now or not?

You asked me a good question and got a good answer.

ID is not science. It's another form of creationism that was birthed out of religious beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

ID is not science.

That is correct.

ID is Satan's cheap imitation for Creationism.

It's another form of creationism that was birthed out of religious beliefs.

No argument there.

 

[Occams Barber]

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You want Proof? First Believe he's Real.
Once you can Accept that GOD exists, then ask for 'proof",
EVERYTHING didn't just come into existence on it's own,
that's foolishness.

I have no idea how, or if, things came into existence but that is no reason to automatically assume that your God was responsible. Go back 60 years and we all believed that the universe had been in a steady (fixed) state for an infinite amount of time - we weren't aware of the Big Bang. Science moves on. God or gods have been used to fill gaps in our knowledge for centuries only to discover that the God filled gap has a rational explanation.

Then there's the issue of 'Which God?"...

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I think in some ways the the beginning of the universe does have something to do with evolution. If we did get the universe we have we would not have been able to evolve life. As Nobel laureate Professor Weinberg

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

Your Weinberg is simply stating the nonsensical.

"If things weren't the way they were, the universe would be different"

Among other things the Fine-Tuning fallacy assumes, with absolutely no evidence, that things could have been different. In fact, since things are the way they are we can be 100% certain that things couldn't have been different.

He's also making the mistake of making the implicit assumption that life itself is proof of God without offering any evidence.

You might also like to look up 'The Gunfighter Fallacy'.


OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea how, or if, things came into existence but that is no reason to automatically assume that your God was responsible.

We don't "automatically assume our God was responsible.

Our God [sic] admitted it in Writing.

Go back 60 years and we all believed that the universe had been in a steady (fixed) state for an infinite amount of time - we weren't aware of the Big Bang. Science moves on. God or gods have been used to fill gaps in our knowledge for centuries only to discover that the God filled gap has a rational explanation.

You can't project your scientific mistakes on to God though.

Just because you can't do science without making mistakes and having to change something every time a new discovery is made, doesn't mean Christianity has to do the same.

 

[Kylie]

Nope.

OB is wrong.

There is what is known as "cosmic evolution," which breaks the secular timeline of the universe up into seven stages.

Biological evolution is just one of them.

See Harvard University's chart.

Funnily enough, I did a search for "Harvard university chart evolution" and didn't find anything like that.

In any case, you are wrong. What you are doing here is like saying horses evolved into cars because they have both been used as forms of transport.

 

[Kylie]

Until then, which side are you going to take?

The side supported by evidence

Do you believe ID is creationism now or not?

It doesn't really matter, since it's unscientific and useless as an explanation for anything. I don't see any reason to give it any further thought than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funnily enough, I did a search for "Harvard university chart evolution" and didn't find anything like that.

Cosmic Evolution

 

[Lost Witness]

only to discover that the God filled gap has a rational explanation.

Then there's the issue of 'Which God?"...

Those "rational" explanations haven't disproved "GOD"
It's Still GOD


It's Most Definitely the Christian GOD,
John 14:6


.

 

[Kylie]

Cosmic Evolution

Do you understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution whatsoever?

 

[Lost Witness]

thinking just because you can figure out how something works or grows doesn't take from the fact that it's because of GOD that anything exists,
none of you can disprove this,
those of us who sit here having this discussion with you do it for your benefit,
We already KNOW he's real,
We're trying to help you.

 

[Kylie]

Hi, @J Mick

I hope you haven't forgotten about my last post to you, Post 68.

I provided the additional support you asked for that micro and macro evolution are the same thing and asked you again what process you think happens in macro evolution that does not also happen in micro evolution. I shall report that post so you don't have to go searching for it...

***

Yea , one person as though they are the authority in Biology, Kylie.

Given that you have no education or qualification in the field at all and have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your position that they are somehow different, I'd say my position is looking a lot better than yours.

But fine, you want to play this silly game?

"The main mistake creationist perpetuate when thinking about micro-vs-macro evolution, is that the two are somehow different and distinct physical processes. This is simply not the case, they are both just evolution." SOURCE The author works in the department of biology at the University of Pennsylvania.

On a page on Quora, where the question was asked, "What are the main and most important differences between macroevolution and microevolution?" These are some of the answers:

• "To be blunt, the spelling is the only difference." Written by an associate professor of anthropology.
• "Time. That is all. There really are no other differences... Scientists who study evolution see no actual difference between lots of evolution and little bits of evolution. THERE IS JUST MORE OF IT. But there is no difference between them, except for giving them time to accumulate. Let me emphasize that again, THERE IS NO BORDER, DIVISION OR BARRIER between these two ‘types’ of evolution..." Written by someone with a Bachelor's and a Doctorate in biology.
• "The same distinction as between a 10-mile hike and a short stroll. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolutions, stacked up." Author has a degree in biology.
• "Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution." Author is a zoologist and a geneticist.
• "Micro- anything is a little bit and macro- anything is a big bit. Micro-evolution is a little bit of evolution and macro-evolution is a big bit of evolution. Neither term is particularly useful." Author has a BSc in biology.
• "Just the number of generations involved." Author is a student of applied biology.

And also:

"...macroevolution is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary events. In other words, microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution. So if microevolution happens, then, ipso facto, macroevolution also happens." SOURCE The author has a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in biology, and is currently a post-doctoral researcher at a university. He has have over a decade of research experience, and has published multiple peer-reviewed papers, served as a reviewer for many journals, and presented his research at national, professional conferences.

So there you go. Multiple people all of whom have studied science and biology a lot more than either of us, and they are all saying that micro evolution and macroevolution are the same exact thing, just over different time scales.

Now, it's time for you to answer my question.

Tell me what process is required for macro-evolution that does not occur in microevolution.

Of course, I suspect that you will find some reason to ignore this and also refuse to answer the question I asked.

 

[driewerf]

Funnily enough, I did a search for "Harvard university chart evolution" and didn't find anything like that.

In any case, you are wrong. What you are doing here is like saying horses evolved into cars because they have both been used as forms of transport.

The search string I used was "cosmic evolution harvard" and then chosed images.
AV1611VET refers to this:

Of cousrse, the Big Bang Theory might be right or wrong, that doesn't affect the Theory of Evolution. Our understanding of nucleosynthesis might be totally flawed ("chemical evolution", if we speak Hovindese), that doesn't affect Plate tectonics etc. It is a few important events on a timeline. But these aren't conceptually dependent.

kind regards,
driewerf