When did evolution begin?

[gordonhooker]

Do the created things create things according to the plan of the creator?

I would not want to even try and second guess the creator, that said, I would assume he does.

 

[justlookinla]

I would not want to even try and second guess the creator, that said, I would assume he does.

I don't think this is about second guessing the creator, but rather about the creator being the creator.

 

[gordonhooker]

I don't think this is about second guessing the creator, but rather about the creator being the creator.

Let me put it another way - I don't know I would not be so bold as to say I know exactly what God plans to do.

 

[justlookinla]

Let me put it another way - I don't know I would not be so bold as to say I know exactly what God plans to do.

The creation of humanity by God was part of His plan.

 

[gordonhooker]

The creation of humanity by God was part of His plan.

Obviously you have not got my point so I will leave it with you.

Blessings, Gordon

 

[justlookinla]

Obviously you have not got my point so I will leave it with you.

Blessings, Gordon

Apparently not.

 

[Rationalt]

Do the created things create things according to the plan of the creator?

Apparently not.The creator of the bible has no clue what is going to happen and make predictions that don't materialize.

 

[justlookinla]

Apparently not.The creator of the bible has no clue what is going to happen and make predictions that don't materialize.

This isn't an apologetics section of the forum.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Self replicating chemicals? Evidence?

"Chemical" might not be the best way of putting it. Replication in systems of complex molecular chemistry happens: This is the basic building block of all known life. That's what DNA is, a complex molecule that is replicated, resulting in an imperfect copy; it is that imperfect copy of DNA that results in biodiversity, differentiation, and ultimately evolution. It's the reason why you don't look like a perfect copy of your two parents.

A system such as this does not need to be "alive" by the standard definition. For example prions, malformed proteins, replicate--you may have heard of "mad cow disease" this is caused by prions which replicate themselves by turning ordinarily healthy proteins into other malformed proteins. Viruses are usually not considered "alive" but are nevertheless self-replicating systems that invade living cellular systems and turn those cells into automated virus replication factories. Life is, more-or-less, a more "advanced", or better put, complex biochemical system of replication, the most basic being simple cells, and when many cells specialize and coordinate we end up having even more complex living systems of biochemistry--like you and me. But the basic processes, the fundamental building blocks of life, are biochemical proto-living replication processes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Evolution began when God created life.

The only contention a Christian or monotheist needs to have with evolution is that man evolved from animals. Animals evolve. Man evolves.

Easy peasy.

And man is an animal. There isn't a scientific distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. We're animals, we just happen to be animals that have the cognitive power to self-reflect on the fact that we're animals.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

And man is an animal. There isn't a scientific distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. We're animals, we just happen to be animals that have the cognitive power to self-reflect on the fact that we're animals.

-CryptoLutheran

God made creepers, swarmers, and beasts.

Then He made man, Adam. There is nothing in the creation story that says or hints that man is an animal at all. Even early man was not an animal, even though he was not ultimately from the line of Shem (those with the name of God's chosen ones).

 

[justlookinla]

And man is an animal. There isn't a scientific distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. We're animals, we just happen to be animals that have the cognitive power to self-reflect on the fact that we're animals.

-CryptoLutheran

One could say that man is a life form....use whatever terminology you wish. The fact is, there isn't another creation in God's creation of life that is like man. Man is created in God's image, not so for the other life forms.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Man is created in God's image, not so for the other life forms.

Man created God so man obviously made his God look like a man, what better way for man to elevate himself to be more than a mere mortal?
We said we did not want to die so we had to do something about it but what? I know, we will invent a God and believe in that God and tell each other that this wonderful all powerful God will stop us from dying, perfect, the problem of dying has been solved.

And believe it or not the problem of dying has really been solved, it really has because even though we all know it's not really true we have convinced ourselves that it is, and it works, billions of people now do not fear death half as much as they once did, however, having solved the problem of death we have now created other problems with the very monster we created to make death go away, our lives have become ruled by the monster.

 

[ViaCrucis]

God made creepers, swarmers, and beasts.

Then He made man, Adam. There is nothing in the creation story that says or hints that man is an animal at all. Even early man was not an animal, even though he was not ultimately from the line of Shem (those with the name of God's chosen ones).

The creation story in Genesis 1 isn't science and doesn't provide any kind of scientific description for man. So that is a moot point.

There is a very clear fossil record (in addition to genetic studies) that very clearly show human beings are part of a larger lineage of great apes--the hominids, whose closest relatives are the chimps.

So, yes, human beings are animals. Phylogenetically this is easily demonstrated by our clear and demonstrable relation with the other great apes and in bounty of hominid fossils; we aren't plants or fungi, we're animals.

Using Genesis 1 to argue against science is like trying to use Jesus' parable of the shrewd manager to advocate dishonest business practices. That's simply not the point of the story. The point of Genesis 1 isn't to give us a scientific analysis of the created world or to describe the material how of God's creative act but to put forward a theology of creation. Because if you try to take Genesis 1 literally you will immediately come to a major stumbling block when you try reading the creation story in Genesis 2, these are two entirely different stories of creation that, if taken literally, are objectively contradictory. In Genesis 1 God creates vegetation before the beasts and the beasts before man; in Genesis 2 God creates man, then He creates vegetation, and puts man in a garden, and then creates the beasts. In Genesis 1 God creates male and female simultaneously, in Genesis 2 God creates Adam before He creates Eve.

So attempting to use Genesis to reject science simply isn't going to be a useful argument. I don't subscribe to a modern fundamentalist reading of Genesis. Neither, mind you, have many Christians right from the early years of the Christian Church (e.g. Origen, Augustine, and right up through Thomas Aquinas in the high middle ages).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

One could say that man is a life form....use whatever terminology you wish. The fact is, there isn't another creation in God's creation of life that is like man. Man is created in God's image, not so for the other life forms.

That isn't relevant. To say man is created in the image of God is a theological statement, not a scientific one.

Man is an animal created in the image of God. These aren't mutually exclusive. Saying we are made in God's image doesn't change the fact that we are animals, hominid apes descended from hominid apes ultimately from non-hominid apes--apes which are placential mammals, mammals which are therapsids, therapsids which are amniotes, amniotes which are tetrapods, tetrapods which are vertebrates, vertebrates which are, you guessed it, animals.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ben West]

One could say that man is a life form....use whatever terminology you wish. The fact is, there isn't another creation in God's creation of life that is like man. Man is created in God's image, not so for the other life forms.

Some men are created in God's Image. It all depends on what you think God's Image is. Amen?

 

[Ben West]

(1) The creation story in Genesis 1 isn't science and doesn't provide any kind of scientific description for man. So that is a moot point.

(2) There is a very clear fossil record (in addition to genetic studies) that very clearly show human beings are part of a larger lineage of great apes--the hominids, whose closest relatives are the chimps.

(3) So, yes, human beings are animals. Phylogenetically this is easily demonstrated by our clear and demonstrable relation with the other great apes and in bounty of hominid fossils; we aren't plants or fungi, we're animals.

(4) Using Genesis 1 to argue against science is like trying to use Jesus' parable of the shrewd manager to advocate dishonest business practices. That's simply not the point of the story. The point of Genesis 1 isn't to give us a scientific analysis of the created world or to describe the material how of God's creative act but to put forward a theology of creation. Because if you try to take Genesis 1 literally you will immediately come to a major stumbling block when you try reading the creation story in Genesis 2, these are two entirely different stories of creation that, if taken literally, are objectively contradictory. In Genesis 1 God creates vegetation before the beasts and the beasts before man; in Genesis 2 God creates man, then He creates vegetation, and puts man in a garden, and then creates the beasts. In Genesis 1 God creates male and female simultaneously, in Genesis 2 God creates Adam before He creates Eve.

(5) So attempting to use Genesis to reject science simply isn't going to be a useful argument. I don't subscribe to a modern fundamentalist reading of Genesis. Neither, mind you, have many Christians right from the early years of the Christian Church (e.g. Origen, Augustine, and right up through Thomas Aquinas in the high middle ages).

-CryptoLutheran

1. False. It's one's interpretation which is at fault. Those who do NOT believe Genesis chapter one CANNOT understand the rest of the Bible.

2. False. The sons of God (prehistoric people) evolved from the common ancestor of Apes but Humans were made long before ANY other living creature. Gen 2:4-7

3. False. Man was made with an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22 Animals are innocent because they are unable to know good and evil. Science has FALSELY classified Humans as innocent animals.

4. False. What is apparent is that some people have NO idea what Genesis is saying. They see 2 stories of the Creation when there is but One. The problem is with their interpretation which does NOT agree with Scripture.

5. God concealed His Truth from people who lived BEFORE the last days. The men named could NOT understand what was written so they tried to explain. Some people STILL believe their ideas because they don't believe the Bible in the first place. Amen?

 

[brinny]

Man created God so man obviously made his God look like a man, what better way for man to elevate himself to be more than a mere mortal?
We said we did not want to die so we had to do something about it but what? I know, we will invent a God and believe in that God and tell each other that this wonderful all powerful God will stop us from dying, perfect, the problem of dying has been solved.

And believe it or not the problem of dying has really been solved, it really has because even though we all know it's not really true we have convinced ourselves that it is, and it works, billions of people now do not fear death half as much as they once did, however, having solved the problem of death we have now created other problems with the very monster we created to make death go away, our lives have become ruled by the monster.

We have not solved the problem of death. We still die, returning to the dust from whence we came.

We are just dust in the wind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Chemical" might not be the best way of putting it. Replication in systems of complex molecular chemistry happens: This is the basic building block of all known life. That's what DNA is, a complex molecule that is replicated, resulting in an imperfect copy; it is that imperfect copy of DNA that results in biodiversity, differentiation, and ultimately evolution. It's the reason why you don't look like a perfect copy of your two parents.

A system such as this does not need to be "alive" by the standard definition. For example prions, malformed proteins, replicate--you may have heard of "mad cow disease" this is caused by prions which replicate themselves by turning ordinarily healthy proteins into other malformed proteins. Viruses are usually not considered "alive" but are nevertheless self-replicating systems that invade living cellular systems and turn those cells into automated virus replication factories. Life is, more-or-less, a more "advanced", or better put, complex biochemical system of replication, the most basic being simple cells, and when many cells specialize and coordinate we end up having even more complex living systems of biochemistry--like you and me. But the basic processes, the fundamental building blocks of life, are biochemical proto-living replication processes.

-CryptoLutheran

Chemical is the best way of putting it. It is also what makes simple chemical reactions and a chance event so completely improbable and DNA by a simple replication near impossible. DNA is a complex molecule and for it to replicate is no simple matter. It is not a more-or-less more advanced complex biochemical system of replication. There is no natural occurring chemical replication that produces chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process. So, this simple idea of a "less advanced" replicating process is not even close to what it would take for life's replicating system, the fundamental building blocks of life are not just a little of this and a bit of that but a very complex biochemical mix that nature is not known to produce naturally.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That isn't relevant. To say man is created in the image of God is a theological statement, not a scientific one.

Man is an animal created in the image of God. These aren't mutually exclusive. Saying we are made in God's image doesn't change the fact that we are animals, hominid apes descended from hominid apes ultimately from non-hominid apes--apes which are placential mammals, mammals which are therapsids, therapsids which are amniotes, amniotes which are tetrapods, tetrapods which are vertebrates, vertebrates which are, you guessed it, animals.

-CryptoLutheran

What evidence convinces you that man is ape?