Evolution vs Creation

[Andrew_26]

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.

I would notise that on this earth, because I am aware that in our enviroment life exists, as does water and holes in the floor and it has yet to be proven that a hole in the floor does not have its initial cause as being the desigh of that floor by an intellegent designer.....as does rain

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..

Sound a little like someone planned this rather complex process. Why did the first organism feel the need (if it had feelings) to divide.....to divide life to something else

 

[Somnus]

Sound a little like someone planned this rather complex process. Why did the first organism feel the need (if it had feelings) to divide.....to divide life to something else

Nothing planned it. The first organisms were not human, they do not "think" like we do. All bacteria know to do is multiply. Thus, they multiply. You do not seem to have a grasp on how evolution actually works (or how to see the universe in a non-anthropomorphic way).. why not research some instead of asking silly questions such as this?

Funny how a bacteria colony can become so large as to outweigh the earth. This, or course, does not happen often. The colony dies in it's own waste. Sounds a lot like humans on this planet in a not-so-distant future..

 

[notto]

Sound a little like someone planned this rather complex process. Why did the first organism feel the need (if it had feelings) to divide.....to divide life to something else

Why does gas feel the need to burn?

 

[Edx]

Andrew_26[/i]]
Sound a little like someone planned this rather complex process. Why did the first organism feel the need (if it had feelings) to divide.....to divide life to something else

Why does liqued feel the need to become ice?
Why do snowflakes feel the need to form?
Why does rain feel the need to fall?
Why does light feel the need to become rainbows?
Why does magnesium feel the need to burn so brilliantly?
...

 

[Edx]

I would notise that on this earth, because I am aware that in our enviroment life exists, as does water and holes in the floor and it has yet to be proven that a hole in the floor does not have its initial cause as being the desigh of that floor by an intellegent designer.....as does rain

...You dont know where rain comes from?

Ed

 

[Praxiteles]

You dont know where rain comes from?

Ed

God's bladder?

 

[Andrew_26]

It all has to do with an energy scource desn't it. Heat create the need for gas to burn, cold creates the need for liquid to turn into ice. Gravity helps keep us on this earth

OK I will not ask the simple questions if you can not answer them

 

[raphael_aa]

It all has to do with an energy scource desn't it. Heat create the need for gas to burn, cold creates the need for liquid to turn into ice. Gravity helps keep us on this earth

OK I will not ask the simple questions if you can not answer them

Its not that your questions are so mind-numbingly simple that it stumps we crazy science types, its that you anthropomorphizing all over the place creating questions that aren't really questions at all. Take for example this sentence:

'Heat create the need for gas to burn, cold creates the need for liquid to turn into ice.'

Heat doesn't create a 'need'. There is no 'need' in naturalistic science as if water molecules were all making little decisions about what they 'need' to do. Applying energy (heat) increases molecular vibration that adds extra energy to the collisions gas molecules make with oxygen molecules. Once a particular energy thresshold is reached, chemical reactions (burning) ensues.

Similarly, all the phenomena you listed are easily explained naturalistically. You seem to think naturalistic explanations are in opposition to theological ones. Its not a question of either/or, its a question of both/and. God shows His handiwork in the very natural laws and processes you want to divorce Him from so He can do parlour tricks. To me, this smacks of an almost gnostic dualism. In the end, it is a stance which is also doomed to failure as your God shrinks as knowledge grows.

 

[corvus_corax]

To me, this smacks of an almost gnostic dualism.

I'd never thought of it that way.
Is it possible that arguments such as we have seen are coming close to what is considered heresy (without them even realizing it)?

 

[Andrew_26]

Thank you rachel....although my God is not likely to shrink as the path I have been put on started from Him

I would (and do) agree that you can not have one (evolution) without the other (God) although that does seem to put science and religion on a path that I tryed for a long time to keep from joining.

I understand the increase in molecular vibration that causes a Liguid (or gas) when exposed to energy (heat) to expand or become a gas. ......

Which does mean that a liquid exposed to enough heat (and not contained in a pressure vessel) "needs" (not in a human perspective of needs and wants) to turn into a gas (or at the very least a larger volume)

the same goes for the other items above

 

[raphael_aa]

Thank you rachel....although my God is not likely to shrink as the path I have been put on started from Him

I would (and do) agree that you can not have one (evolution) without the other (God) although that does seem to put science and religion on a path that I tryed for a long time to keep from joining.

I understand the increase in molecular vibration that causes a Liguid (or gas) when exposed to energy (heat) to expand or become a gas. ......

Which does mean that a liquid exposed to enough heat (and not contained in a pressure vessel) "needs" (not in a human perspective of needs and wants) to turn into a gas (or at the very least a larger volume)

the same goes for the other items above

Who's rachel and does she want my phone number?

 

[Edx]

It all has to do with an energy scource desn't it. Heat create the need for gas to burn, cold creates the need for liquid to turn into ice. Gravity helps keep us on this earth

OK I will not ask the simple questions if you can not answer them

How could you miss the point.

 

[Edx]

Which does mean that a liquid exposed to enough heat (and not contained in a pressure vessel) "needs" (not in a human perspective of needs and wants) to turn into a gas (or at the very least a larger volume)

Oh good. Then surely you can apply that to your statement about chemical reactions in abiogenesis.

Ed

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

Uh, okay. So why were you asking?

Because I would like an answer

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

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

Thank you for your answer

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

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

Yes, but you have close to 1800 posts and i have close to 80 - you have been spending a lot more time on here than i have

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)

I have prayed for you. That is wonderful news!

 

[corvus_corax]

Yes, but you have close to 1800 posts and i have close to 80 - you have been spending a lot more time on here than i have

I spend far too much time here

 

[Randall McNally]

Because I would like an answer

Me too. But you agreed with me that an answer is not forthcoming.

Now what?