What's the point? Evolution...

[Vene]

Ok, as I guessed, the subject strayed from my original question.

Oh, you want to know what the point of evolution is? I need clarification:
Do you want to know what the goal of evolution is? (there isn't one)
Do you want to know applications? Evolutionary algorithms would be one.
It's also being used in nutrition.
How about medicine? Does medicine have a point?

 

[dad]

dont you mean common descent from the Ark?

Yes, to a point, but not for the plants, and sea creatures, and I am not sure about bugs.

 

[Vene]

Yes, to a point, but not for the plants, and sea creatures, and I am not sure about bugs.

The plants would have drowned, and the change in salinity would have killed off the vast majority of aquatic life. Oh right, life was different then. Not that you provide a bit of evidence.

 

[stevendrake]

Big Bang... So an explosion from nothing formed matter eh?


I contest that all did not come from nothing and that the complexity points toward intelligent design. The rest follows suit. You can choose to believe God or absurdities. I don't need proof but the science is interesting. Your blades will dull with time because I will understand you better. I love my God and my fellow man. That would include all of you. In that, I fear for you wether that is offensive to you or not. Furthermore, it is not worth your retort because the fact will remain.


"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Matthew 5:44

With that said, God Bless.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Yes, to a point, but not for the plants, and sea creatures, and I am not sure about bugs.

the flood spared them because??????

 

[Vene]

Big Bang... So an explosion from nothing formed matter eh?

That is not what the theory states. It says that there was an expansion of space and that due to this the total amount of energy was converted into matter (this can be explained using Einstein's equation e=mc[sup]2[/sup]). But, don't listen to me, read more.
While you're at it, look up cosmic background radiation.

 

[dad]

The plants would have drowned, and the change in salinity would have killed off the vast majority of aquatic life. Oh right, life was different then. Not that you provide a bit of evidence.

No need for any of that at all. I think that plants were first created as seeds, then planted on earth. All we need is fast growth. Same deal after the flood, all we need is seeds. Your point is dead.

 

[TheBear]

Do all plant seeds survive being in water for months?

 

[dad]

the flood spared them because??????

Is it really a must to have all bugs on the ark?? What about floating islands of debris, and all that sort of thing?? As I say, I don't know. But man and beast was on there.

 

[dad]

Do all plant seeds survive being in water for months?

I don't know, but there were spaceships if needed. Remember, God hovered over the earth in creation week. But, if you prefer a more 'natural idea' maybe we could take some seeds into the ark. After all, the animals needed to be fed, and with the fast growth rates, why, it was a piece of cake. We can even toss some on floating debris if you like.

 

[stevendrake]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein



Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.r faith and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.


But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

 

[Vene]

As long as it fits the evidence, I have no issue with this.

 

[Lord_Marx]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein



Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.r faith and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.


But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

That's what people have been trying to tell you, evolution =/= atheism.

 

[stevendrake]

No, there are many scientist (much smarter than you or I) who have become Christian because at the end of the day... It's the only answer that fits.

 

[stevendrake]

Also I don't believe that the universe was an accident.

 

[stevendrake]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein



Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.r faith and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.


But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

Also I do not agree with the fine point about "how the universe began" which is untrue. "When" should have been the chosen word.

 

[flatworm]

I'm not an expert on cosmology by any means, but let me give you a rundown on the basic idea.

Measurements of distant galaxies show that the universe is expanding. Space itself is expanding. If you run that back in time, you inevitably end up with a universe in a very compact state - and stuffing all that mass and energy into a small space means the temperature had to be extremely high. The cosmic microwave background radiation backs up this idea to a high degree of precision.

Now, running time backwards still further, we inevitably end up with a state so compact that our current notions of time and space become useless. We don't know what happened before then, or even if there was a 'before'. We're working on that.

Does our ignorance of what came "before" the Big Bang mean God set it in motion? Some think he did, but it isn't logically necessary. That would be a "god of the gaps" fallacy. Some people, myself included, just prefer an honest "I don't know" to arbitrarily plugging in an unverifiable supernatural cause of our choice and calling it knowledge.

BTW, Einstein did not believe in a conscious, personal god. He was more of a pantheist. Here's one site that collects many of his quotes on the subject.

 

[stevendrake]

That is not what the theory states. It says that there was an expansion of space and that due to this the total amount of energy was converted into matter (this can be explained using Einstein's equation e=mc[sup]2[/sup]). But, don't listen to me, read more.
While you're at it, look up cosmic background radiation.

No, you tell me exactly what exploded? You can't answer because your universe didn't exist yet so you have no reference point. Nothing as we can perceive it existed. Gotta work tomorrow so I'm out till next time. God Bless

 

[Vene]

No, you tell me exactly what exploded? You can't answer because your universe didn't exist yet so you have no reference point. Nothing as we can perceive it existed. Gotta work tomorrow so I'm out till next time. God Bless

There was no explosion. Read the links I provided. The people who wrote those pages know a lot more than me on this subject.

 

[Skaloop]

No, you tell me exactly what exploded? You can't answer because your universe didn't exist yet so you have no reference point. Nothing as we can perceive it existed. Gotta work tomorrow so I'm out till next time. God Bless

There was no explosion. It was an expansion. We don't know whether the universe existed "before" that. Maybe it didn't, maybe it did in an entirely different form.