Evolution, in a sense

[toirewadokodesuka]

Atheistic Evolution is the hypothesis that the cosmos came about randomly and from non-existence and has undergone many years of changes. First it was non-existence, then existence starting with primitive elements, then the higher elements, then on to bulkier dead materials like water and rock, then living material like unicellular organisms and plants and multicellular organismzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Summary:
Phase 1: Non-existence becomes existence randomly and the univers is eternal!
Phase 2: Dead Material becomes Living material.
Phase 3: Living Material undergoes many years of random change.....

[If you REALLY wanna put your atheist teacher / lecturer on the spot, ask him about phase 1 or 2 *MWAH HA HA HA* I did and my teacher was speechless. He actually said: "I dont think about things like that." And he's like a descendant of Einstein dudez.]

I think Charse Darwin would have had a greater success with Christians if he included God into his hypothesis, because of his common heritage theory...

God created everything, right? Then it shouldn't be so hard for you to see all those similar concepts in the things he has created?

For instance, most living organisms (unicellular / multicellular) have a brain, of sorts. Most organisms utilise nutrition to survive. Most living things have organs (cells have organelles). And to mention, pretty much everything is made up of little atoms. Not to mention, man was made in the image of whom? And to get really weird here, heavenly entities like angels and demons are also probably made up of some sort of substance / building block. Some sort of strange elements... maybe i dont know.

I think God governed a sort of evolution... how long that took i dont really care... but thats what i think. Evolution has a degree of believability as long as God is included in the hypothesis.

Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome Almighty Theologians!

Cheers

 

[RaptorJesusAlmighty]

There is only evolution because Raptor Jesus wills it to be so.



Also. TL;DR

 

[Mallon]

I think Charse Darwin would have had a greater success with Christians if he included God into his hypothesis, because of his common heritage theory...

He did. Have you read his Origin of Species? Darwin refers to God as the creator many times throughout.
Regardless, a good theory doesn't require a miraculous god to fill in the gaps. Can you name one established scientific theory that requires a god to perform miracles in order for it to work?
Why, as Christians, should we restrict God to acting only through miracles? Is He not capable of carrying out His will through completely natural processes, too?

 

[gluadys]

Summary:
Phase 1: Non-existence becomes existence randomly and the univers is eternal!
Phase 2: Dead Material becomes Living material.
Phase 3: Living Material undergoes many years of random change.....

[If you REALLY wanna put your atheist teacher / lecturer on the spot, ask him about phase 1 or 2 *MWAH HA HA HA* I did and my teacher was speechless. He actually said: "I dont think about things like that." And he's like a descendant of Einstein dudez.]

Yeah, the phase one question is more philosophy than science.

btw, "dead" is not a good word choice for phase two. "dead" implies something that used to be alive but isn't now. I think you mean stuff that was never alive.

I think Charse Darwin would have had a greater success with Christians if he included God into his hypothesis, because of his common heritage theory...

As mallon said, he did. And he did have success with Christians. One of his original supporters was Asa Gray an American evangelical Christian.

You can find out a lot about the Christian support for Darwin in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David N. Livingstone.




btw, I am just beginning to learn Japanese. Cute username.

 

[Vance]

Don't forget that evolution says nothing at all about how life originated. One huge mistake that creationists make is to equate abiogenesis with evolution.

Other than that, yes, of course we believe that God had everything to do with evolution.

Here is a little tidbit to always keep in mind. If you took all of the people in the world who accept evolution and put them in a huge room, a majority of those people would NOT be atheists.

 

[Bushido216]

Atheistic Evolution is the hypothesis that the cosmos came about randomly and from non-existence and has undergone many years of changes. First it was non-existence, then existence starting with primitive elements, then the higher elements, then on to bulkier dead materials like water and rock, then living material like unicellular organisms and plants and multicellular organismzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Summary:
Phase 1: Non-existence becomes existence randomly and the univers is eternal!
Phase 2: Dead Material becomes Living material.
Phase 3: Living Material undergoes many years of random change.....

[If you REALLY wanna put your atheist teacher / lecturer on the spot, ask him about phase 1 or 2 *MWAH HA HA HA* I did and my teacher was speechless. He actually said: "I dont think about things like that." And he's like a descendant of Einstein dudez.]

I think Charse Darwin would have had a greater success with Christians if he included God into his hypothesis, because of his common heritage theory...

God created everything, right? Then it shouldn't be so hard for you to see all those similar concepts in the things he has created?

For instance, most living organisms (unicellular / multicellular) have a brain, of sorts. Most organisms utilise nutrition to survive. Most living things have organs (cells have organelles). And to mention, pretty much everything is made up of little atoms. Not to mention, man was made in the image of whom? And to get really weird here, heavenly entities like angels and demons are also probably made up of some sort of substance / building block. Some sort of strange elements... maybe i dont know.

I think God governed a sort of evolution... how long that took i dont really care... but thats what i think. Evolution has a degree of believability as long as God is included in the hypothesis.

Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome Almighty Theologians!

Cheers

Your teacher's confusion couldn't be at all related to the fact that nothing you posted has the faintest thing to do with evolutionary theory? Could it? Nah.

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

There is only evolution because Raptor Jesus wills it to be so.



Also. TL;DR

Huh, what does that have to do with it?

 

[Bushido216]

About as much as anything you said had to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

He did. Have you read his Origin of Species? Darwin refers to God as the creator many times throughout.
Regardless, a good theory doesn't require a miraculous god to fill in the gaps. Can you name one established scientific theory that requires a god to perform miracles in order for it to work?
Why, as Christians, should we restrict God to acting only through miracles? Is He not capable of carrying out His will through completely natural processes, too?

thats awesome, i didn't know that. i just assumed. but thats pretty FUNNY! [x
ya i agree, but i wasnt trying to suggest RESTRICTION or anything like that.

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

btw, "dead" is not a good word choice for phase two. "dead" implies something that used to be alive but isn't now. I think you mean stuff that was never alive.

i see, dead like as in a dead moose or something, but my bio teacher told us abiotic means dead and biotic material means living, but not everyone is a biology student.

As mallon said, he did. And he did have success with Christians. One of his original supporters was Asa Gray an American evangelical Christian.

You can find out a lot about the Christian support for Darwin in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David N. Livingstone.

im growing fonder of Charles Darwin by the day!^__^

btw, I am just beginning to learn Japanese. Cute username.

r u finding it hard?
thnx *feelz CUTE*

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

Don't forget that evolution says nothing at all about how life originated. One huge mistake that creationists make is to equate abiogenesis with evolution.

im not a creationist
dont agree... pioneerers like dawkins, etc. say plenty about orgins. and then there's cosmology and stellar evolution, in fact i think if u go on NASA's website and other space websites ull get loads of bigbang origins evolutionary theory

Other than that, yes, of course we believe that God had everything to do with evolution.

thats kwl
also, i dont believe in the evolution ur probably thinking about

Here is a little tidbit to always keep in mind. If you took all of the people in the world who accept evolution and put them in a huge room, a majority of those people would NOT be atheists.

ur prob right, but id never know cus i never done that b4!

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

About as much as anything you said had to do with evolutionary theory.

ya i dont agree anyway
if u feel so STRONGLY about it
highlight everything that has NOTHING to do with evolution in my post
cheers

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

Your teacher's confusion couldn't be at all related to the fact that nothing you posted has the faintest thing to do with evolutionary theory? Could it? Nah.

ya i disagree with what ur saying 2
btw im EMPHASISING my teachers Evolution... so like... u cant really say that

 

[Bushido216]

Can you please rephrase that? I can't understand what it is you're trying to communicate given your complete abandonment of the rules of grammar, spelling, syntax, etc.

 

[Bushido216]

Atheistic Evolution is the hypothesis that the cosmos came about randomly and from non-existence and has undergone many years of changes. First it was non-existence, then existence starting with primitive elements, then the higher elements, then on to bulkier dead materials like water and rock, then living material like unicellular organisms and plants and multicellular organismzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Summary:
Phase 1: Non-existence becomes existence randomly and the univers is eternal!
Phase 2: Dead Material becomes Living material.
Phase 3: Living Material undergoes many years of random change.....

[If you REALLY wanna put your atheist teacher / lecturer on the spot, ask him about phase 1 or 2 *MWAH HA HA HA* I did and my teacher was speechless. He actually said: "I dont think about things like that." And he's like a descendant of Einstein dudez.]

I think Charse Darwin would have had a greater success with Christians if he included God into his hypothesis, because of his common heritage theory...

God created everything, right? Then it shouldn't be so hard for you to see all those similar concepts in the things he has created?

For instance, most living organisms (unicellular / multicellular) have a brain, of sorts. Most organisms utilise nutrition to survive. Most living things have organs (cells have organelles). And to mention, pretty much everything is made up of little atoms. Not to mention, man was made in the image of whom? And to get really weird here, heavenly entities like angels and demons are also probably made up of some sort of substance / building block. Some sort of strange elements... maybe i dont know.

I think God governed a sort of evolution... how long that took i dont really care... but thats what i think. Evolution has a degree of believability as long as God is included in the hypothesis.

Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome Almighty Theologians!

Cheers

Since you requested that I highlight (in this case, I will use the Bold feature) anything you said that is unrelated to modern evolutionary theory.

Now, the part I did not bold actually deals with living organisms, but you're incredibly wrong about how those organisms function. You're over-generalizing. As it turns out the vast majority of living organisms don't have "brains", or their equivalent.

 

[Vance]

We should not let those few scientists, like Dawkins, who address both biogenesis and evolution, create a conflation of the two in our minds or in how we discuss these matters. It works in the favor of many atheists to undermine Christianity by keeping the two joined, thus keeping many Christians from accepting evolution, which, in turns, does much damage to the true Christian message.

Also, when you are speaking with people outside of your particular "generation", it is bad manners to speak L33t.

 

[Bushido216]

im not a creationist
dont agree... pioneerers like dawkins, etc. say plenty about orgins. and then there's cosmology and stellar evolution, in fact i think if u go on NASA's website and other space websites ull get loads of bigbang origins evolutionary theory

1. You are a creationist. You may not be a special creationist, but you are a creationist.

2. A scientist can have knowledge, or speak about, more than one topic at a time without them necessarily being the same topic. As well, topics can be related but not the same topic, as is the case of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. They're certainly quite interested one in the other but they're not the same theory nor are they inter-dependent.

3. Big-bang theory and cosmological evolution are just that, astrophysics topics. Evolution means change, evolutionary theory that we generally discuss is biological evolutionary theory. You'd be talking about various theories that refer to the evolution of systems in space... but they're not biological, they cannot reproduce, and therefore are completely different topics.

If you're going to try to understand (read, criticize) a topic, you'd do well to make sure you understand the terminology that is being used, as the people in the field are using it.

 

[Bushido216]

We should not let those few scientists, like Dawkins, who address both biogenesis and evolution, create a conflation of the two in our minds or in how we discuss these matters. It works in the favor of many atheists to undermine Christianity by keeping the two joined, thus keeping many Christians from accepting evolution, which, in turns, does much damage to the true Christian message.

Also, when you are speaking with people outside of your particular "generation", it is bad manners to speak L33t.

I'm only four years older than him and I barely understand him. Personally I think its intellectually lazy to not bother to write in an accepted way and to be unconcerned with exactly how many people can understand you.

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

Can you please rephrase that? I can't understand what it is you're trying to communicate given your complete abandonment of the rules of grammar, spelling, syntax, etc.

what u want me to rephrase?
get use to it buddy

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

Since you requested that I highlight (in this case, I will use the Bold feature) anything you said that is unrelated to modern evolutionary theory.

Now, the part I did not bold actually deals with living organisms, but you're incredibly wrong about how those organisms function. You're over-generalizing. As it turns out the vast majority of living organisms don't have "brains", or their equivalent.

ok well im just gonna assume u dont know what cosmology and chemical evolution and those other feilds of evolution are... btw genetics (mutations) and cosmology (origin and space dimension) seam to be the means of focus nowadays.... im sure theres more, but thats what i know.

i dont think i agree with what you say about brains and the equivalent... in biology i was taught that most organisms have some sort of faculty that govern lower activities like a nucleus, etc....... most unicellular organisms have a nucleus like a brain of big multicellular organisms... what u think?