Evolution vs Creation

[Hydra009]

Somnus, at the next EAC meeting, we've gotta talk. Plus, I'm going to have to take at look your helmet's visor and recalibrate the friendly/foe orientation in the HUD.

Christians who accept evolution = good
Christians who don't accept evolution = bad

 

[Somnus]

Somnus, at the next EAC meeting, we've gotta talk. Plus, I'm going to have to take at look your goggles and recalibrate the friendly/foe orientation in the HUD.

TE Christians who accept evolution = good
YEC Christians who don't accept evolution = bad

I have no idea what you are talking about...

I don't consider putting God in the universe to cover up for the lack of insufficient data on the theist's part good. Meh.. I'm tired.. I'm confusing myself thinking of what I am trying to think of typing.

 

[Hydra009]

Well, Glaudys is stating solidly that evolution happens. And then she states that she believes in God. She is not claiming that evolution necessarily requires a god, only that she believes that evolution happens and it is her belief is that God used evolution. Does that make sense?

 

[gluadys]

Your god is your imagination.

Could well be. Ever read Kierkegaard?

Faith by necessity is subjective. And by necessity objectively uncertain even when subjectively certain. No matter how convinced I may be on a subjective level of the reality of God, I must always be objectively uncertain of God's reality.

That is why it takes faith to believe in God, but no faith to accept evolution.

Someone has a good sig that speaks to the issue. Something like faith has certainty without evidence, science has evidence without certainty.

You may believe what you wish, as I know I cannot reverse the years of brainwashing so many people, such as yourself, have received.

Oh, I have enough years of studying this stuff seriously from many different viewpoints---including atheism and various non-Christian faiths--that I have long since shaken off any youthful brainwashing. I am not supportive of authoritarianism in the church any more than in any other institution. You won't find me swayed by such arguments as "the bible says".

Then why even put a higher power in the universe, if it is not needed to function?

You are wanting to apply Occam's razor. It is a good guideline, but only a guideline. Just because God is apparently unnecessary doesn't mean God is not a factor. Just means we have no way to test the necessity of God.

Also you are forgetting there is more to life than science.

You stated above that you believe that God sustains all the natural functions of the universe, including evolution. Wouldn't this assume God exists in order for evolution to take place? Perhaps I am thinking too much or too little...

Yes, I would say you were. You are trying to puzzle out a theist mode of thinking from an atheist framework. Not easy to do.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

 

[Beastt]

If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

I would ask that you first look to your own examples. Notice how you always move from the small to the large or the less complex to the more complex. Then you suggest that the first thing was God -- the most complex, all-knowing, all-foreseeing. That doesn't make much sense nor does it fit with what we know of the universe or with the principles of Occam's Razor. Now ask yourself this; Where did God come from? The standard answer is that he just exists and has always existed. Now look back at your question and ask yourself why it is that it's so easy to accept that God just exists, but impossible for you to believe that the first speck you're looking for just exists?

If it works for God, then there is no reason for it not to work just as well for those original ingredients you're searching for. In fact, if you apply the "just exists" concept to the original ingredients instead of applying it to God, we can even stay consistent with the lesser to greater -- less complex to more complex theme.

Now we will see if no one has been able to answer this for you or if you simply don't care for the answer because it doesn't require God.

 

[Randall McNally]

If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

And it is unlikely that anyone ever will. It is a question of pure ontology; that is, what exists outside of the system within which existence is defined and described.

Currently, we lack the meta-language necessary to describe the logical precursor of existence - our systems treat existence as an axiom.

 

[notto]

What Randall said

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

I would ask that you first look to your own examples. Notice how you always move from the small to the large or the less complex to the more complex. Then you suggest that the first thing was God -- the most complex, all-knowing, all-foreseeing. That doesn't make much sense nor does it fit with what we know of the universe or with the principles of Occam's Razor. Now ask yourself this; Where did God come from? The standard answer is that he just exists and has always existed. Now look back at your question and ask yourself why it is that it's so easy to accept that God just exists, but impossible for you to believe that the first speck you're looking for just exists?

If it works for God, then there is no reason for it not to work just as well for those original ingredients you're searching for. In fact, if you apply the "just exists" concept to the original ingredients instead of applying it to God, we can even stay consistent with the lesser to greater -- less complex to more complex theme.

Now we will see if no one has been able to answer this for you or if you simply don't care for the answer because it doesn't require God.

Hmmm.... i never mentioned God in my post.......
all i asked was where do evolutionists or even big bang theorists believe the original matter came from to initiate their beliefs....
Still no answer......

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

And it is unlikely that anyone ever will. It is a question of pure ontology; that is, what exists outside of the system within which existence is defined and described.

I disagree with your definition of ontology - It is a systematic account of Existence not what is outside the system of existence n : the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence.

Currently, we lack the meta-language necessary to describe the logical precursor of existence - our systems treat existence as an axiom.

Strike 2 - meta-language is only used to describe or analyze language, not evolution or the beginning of existence. Meta language is a language or vocabulary used to describe or analyze language.

Also you say "the logical precursor of existence" If you have analyzed it enough to say there is a LOGICAL precurson of existence, please tell me what it is.

Of course existence is an axiom (A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument). We are not debating our existence. We both agree that we exist. The issue at hand is "where did the original ingredients come from", and basically your answer was.....
you have no idea, (just trying to use big words ) .

You are correct in saying it is unlikely that anyone will be able to answer.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

What Randall said

cute

so, see my response to Randall

 

[corvus_corax]

Hmmm.... i never mentioned God in my post.......
all i asked was where do evolutionists or even big bang theorists believe the original matter came from to initiate their beliefs....
Still no answer......

1- Evolution does not, never has, and (unless it undergoes a complete transformation) never will explain where matter came from.
Additionally, you are using the term "Evolutionist" far too loosely here, as there are many many Christians who believe in evolution. They, obviously, would say that God created the matter. What I think you mean to say is "Atheistic evolutionist".
2- Regarding BB theory and where did all the matter come from, I just chalk it up to God's Debris

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

1- Evolution does not, never has, and (unless it undergoes a complete transformation) never will explain where matter came from.
Additionally, you are using the term "Evolutionist" far too loosely here, as there are many many Christians who believe in evolution. They, obviously, would say that God created the matter. What I think you mean to say is "Atheistic evolutionist".
2- Regarding BB theory and where did all the matter come from, I just chalk it up to God's Debris

I did not put the term "evolutionist" in my original post, you are right, i should not have put it here.

Thanks for your reply. So you are a Christian evolutionist?

 

[corvus_corax]

Thanks for your reply. So you are a Christian evolutionist?

Nope (note the

icon)
But I understand their POV fairly well.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

Nope (note the

icon)
But I understand their POV fairly well.

ooops, i'm really new to this discussion board and haven't figured it all out yet. sorry. i'll pray for you

 

[corvus_corax]

ooops,

It's cool

i'm really new to this discussion board and haven't figured it all out yet.

You're only about a month newer than I am on these forums

sorry.

No problem

i'll pray for you

Knock yourself out (no sarcasm intended). There are some Christians beliefs (although generally considered heretical) that Im beginning to consider (but let's not get into that on this thread..another thread or PM can be created for that)

 

[Jet Black]

all i asked was where do evolutionists or even big bang theorists believe the original matter came from to initiate their beliefs....
Still no answer......

I believe you have been answered a number of times; we don't know.

evolutionists may believe lots of things about the origin of matter itself, including "God made it" remember that many christians who believe that God made the universe, also accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. Many Christians are also "Big Bang Theorists" or rather accept the Big Bang - a concept that was initially inspired by a christian no less as a result of the application of Einstein's Relativistic equations to a non steady state universe.

That was the simple bit.

as to the origin of matter, this presupposes a number of things
(1) that the concept of an origin makes sense.
(2) that matter requires an origin.

I will start with the latter point first. It is a common misconception that "all things have origins" since when we look at the underlying nature of these things, then all we see is that things constantly change form. a slice of toast was once a slice of bread which was once an element of a loaf, which was once wet dough which was once (partially) flour, which was once wheat which was once alive, which was once mud which was once other living organisms, which were once inorganic chemicals and so on. so we see a change of form, but never an origin as such. matter is a particular example of this, in that its interrelationship with energy are such that the two are interconvertible. energy itself may be bound up in fields such as the gravitational field or magnetic field, or even the strong and weak forces, all of which make up the very fabric of the universe itself. for example, a starquake might release a vast amount of energy from it's gravitational or magnetic fields in the form of light yome photons ofwhich may spontaneously change into matter. So we can see that the emergence of matter is tied into the nature of the universe itself. While all the evidence indicates an expanding universe that was once extremely small and hot, it is not clear that the universe itself requires a beginning, since the models that predict what we see break down and are invalid on extremely small spatial and temporal scales as clearly existed in the early universe. This brings us to (1) does the concept of an origin even make sense? as shown, matter is wound into the nature of spacetime itself, and so the "origin" of all the stuff that eventually became matter would be synonymous with the origin of spacetime. now how are we looking at origins here? fundamentally an origin is more or less definable if you like, as an event that occurs at a particular spacetime location, but the universe has no such usefully describable location. The location that you are looking at; the Big Bang singularity itself exists in a region of physics where it cannot be currently modelled, although there are a number of proposals, all of which end up destroying the concept of an origin, just three of them are here:

(a) the boundaryless proposal
(b) the ekpyrotic scenario
(c) deity

however evidence for these is inconclusive at this current time.

 

[Andrew_26]

"And God said let there be light" .............and there was light

I know I am late but you guys had a great fight so I though I would congratulate you on making me slightly more confused and all the time amazed to see the simplicity of the truth that science has been trying to deny.

I admit that I have not read as much as you guys seem to have but there are a few things I must point out and the first is
(1) You travel to Mars and find a large dome, blocked off from the unihabitable Martian atmosphere and after wandering around this dome you find a door and head inside. You find that once you are inside you do not need your breathing apparatus and that the enviroment is strikingly different to the dessolate red, dry, cold martian landscape. Amazed you sit back and think............"it is by chance alone that this biosphere is here, it is by chance alone that it has created life"

Would not the scientist in you realise that there was a designer behind it. Would the fact that you did not know the origins of this designer (country, state. town) make him any less real

I did consider myself a christian evolutionist but and that that was how God chose to make us what we are.....................but I don't believe that God sent a single cell organism to life (well two or three considering you can not have the fittest one survive if there is only one) and sat back amazed as humans developed and then realised he was there all along.

Why would humans have the need to enjoy life, when so many animals just live? Why would humans have taste buds (surely the need to taste food to see if it is bad for us does not make us stronger then a creature who knows this by smell alone)? Why would humans enjoy pleasures in life that only Dolphins do?

God had a hand in the mix which created the first life, he had a influence on how we (all creatures developed) and he is still there now

If science eventually finds a "theory of everything" how thankful should we be that the One who made all things new this eons ago.

 

[Randall McNally]

I disagree with your definition of ontology - It is a systematic account of Existence not what is outside the system of existence n : the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence.

That's why I used the phrase "pure ontology." I don't really know what else to call meta-existence.

Strike 2 - meta-language is only used to describe or analyze language, not evolution or the beginning of existence. Meta language is a language or vocabulary used to describe or analyze language.

Exactly. Our language treats existence as an axiom. In order to talk meaningfully about the nature of existence, we need a language in which existence can be a predicate.

Also you say "the logical precursor of existence" If you have analyzed it enough to say there is a LOGICAL precurson of existence, please tell me what it is.

I was unclear. I am saying if there is a logical precursor of existence, we lack a system capable of describing it.

Of course existence is an axiom (A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument). We are not debating our existence. We both agree that we exist. The issue at hand is "where did the original ingredients come from", and basically your answer was.....
you have no idea, (just trying to use big words ) .

You are correct in saying it is unlikely that anyone will be able to answer.

Uh, okay. So why were you asking?

 

[Jet Black]

I admit that I have not read as much as you guys seem to have but there are a few things I must point out and the first is
(1) You travel to Mars and find a large dome, blocked off from the unihabitable Martian atmosphere and after wandering around this dome you find a door and head inside. You find that once you are inside you do not need your breathing apparatus and that the enviroment is strikingly different to the dessolate red, dry, cold martian landscape. Amazed you sit back and think............"it is by chance alone that this biosphere is here, it is by chance alone that it has created life"

flawed analogy. If you see a puddle in a whole on the floor, you would notice that the puddle fits the whole perfectly. does this mean that the hole has been made specifically for that puddle? no, it means the puddle has flowed such that it fits the hole. and so it is for life.

I did consider myself a christian evolutionist but and that that was how God chose to make us what we are.....................but I don't believe that God sent a single cell organism to life (well two or three considering you can not have the fittest one survive if there is only one)

flawed understanding of evolution. remember the evolution and selection of life takes place in the slightly varying offspring. and given that a single bacterium can replicate lots of times, there would be lots of offspring, so you can get "survival of the fittest" from a single organism, because it breeds and makes lots of organisms.

and sat back amazed as humans developed and then realised he was there all along.

that could be part of the plan.

Why would humans have the need to enjoy life, when so many animals just live?

lots of animals enjoy life too. rather antrhopocentric don't you think?

Why would humans have taste buds (surely the need to taste food to see if it is bad for us does not make us stronger then a creature who knows this by smell alone)?

but it does though doesn't it? the taste buds on the tongue are there for the most basic tastes, salt, sugar, sweet and sour, which are an indicator as to whether food is good or not. the rest of taste is actually a part of smell, usually for aromatics that do not disperse easily in the air. so taste detects things that smell cannot, some of which are good and some of which are bad, so like other animals, we can taste because it is useful. rather interestingly though, why do humans have so many pseudogenes for olfactory receptors that are now broken?

Why would humans enjoy pleasures in life that only Dolphins do?

why would dolphins enjoy pleasures in life that only Humans do? how do we know only dolphins and humans enjoy these things. again you are being a tad presumptive.