• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind

Alceste

Vagabond
Wow! You know a lot. I wonder why you won't answer my question though. Isn't it unscientific to believe in something that had no start?

This question doesn't make any sense to me. It is scientific to accept whatever truth the physical evidence reveals. When not enough evidence has been accumulated to determine the truth, it is scientific to methodically investigate until the truth is known.

Scientists are investigating very specific phenomena. If you're trying to figure out why water boils, the origin of water is irrelevant. If you're trying to figure out how specific organisms adapt to specific conditions, the origin of life is irrelevant.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Now to address Savagewind's concern, as best I can in a limited post. The others are correct in what they say about making a distinction between abiogenisis and the theory of evolution, as they are not one and the same. But to the point you are getting at underlying all of this is a question of if all that we see and experience, from the stars and the planets, the oceans and the animals that inhabit them and the land above, from the sea-sponge to you and me sitting here conversing over thousands of miles in our respective homes, that if all of this is 'only' a natural process, doesn't this mean God is unnecessary? Doesn't it boil down to that question for you, regardless of arguing and debating how the particular mechanics this process work?

First to look at evolution in the broad sense of the word. Evolution is simply a process that is responsible for change over time. When science speaks of the Theory of Evolution that is speaking of the process of evolution happening within biological organisms responsible for the diversity of animal species. But the fact of evolution, not the theory of evolution which is a model of speciation, but the fact of evolution, like the fact of wind, or the fact of air, or the fact of gravity; the fact of evolution is responsible for everything that self-organizes, from the stars and the planets to you and me. Evolution is just another word for development. You believe in development, surely?

As we develop, as things evolve, the add more and more to themselves. What defines development, or evolution, is this. It is a process of transcending and including what came before the new emergent state. It builds upon the previous level, to the new level. A 20 year old doesn't suddenly burst into existence, but rather moves through a process of development from an infant to an adult, from an acorn to an oak tree. Change, over time, transcending and including what came before it. In the case of you and me as humans, it looks roughly like this: from quarks and atoms, to molecules, to cells, to bodies, to mind, to soul, to spirit. Within me, within this collection of cells and molecules and atoms, I exist. I am star dust, living and breathing with lungs walking on a planet created our of the bits of exploded stars, gathered together through a process of evolution, shaped and molded into me, and into you who know sit talking to one another across the spaces.

Boy, if that doesn't speak of God, of that which comes into being out of nothing, I don't know what does! :) This entire thing, every moment, every shift and change and rearrangement is creation. Everything, every thought, every molecule is constantly evolving into newer forms that sing the praises of this "Creator", that arises within us as we looking into the beauty of the vast and infinite Ocean of matter and mind and spirit.

Does this making believing a literal reading of the Bible in Genesis something to reject? Well, of course, but who on earth said it was meant to be read literally in the first place? The way you read things and understood the world when you were six years old, is it the same as you do now as an adult? Of course not, you've added too much awareness to your evolving, developing self. It doesn't mean you reject God. It means you grow your beliefs up. That's all.

The how of how life came up out of matter in what is called abiogensis, is simply a matter of trying to map out how that process of change occured/occurs. But that is irrelevant to the question of God. God is the Ground of Being, from which all these processes emerge and run their course creating everything that is, as it reaches towards that Source on its path across the cosmos, in it constant movements of being and becoming.

Process that for awhile before responding.

I like the cut of your jib. :)
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Whenever I say "no evidence of evolution" what I mean is there is no way of knowing how it started. It had to start, right? HOW did it start? There must have been a time way back when when reactions were happening at a dizzying rate. Where is the process like that now? Why can it not be observed NOW? You know, NOW?
Ah, so you are not speaking of Biological Evolution, you are speaking of Abiogenesis.

You may think they are the same, but that is like dismissing geology because we cannot see planets being formed NOW in our own solar system. You know, NOW!
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This question doesn't make any sense to me. It is scientific to accept whatever truth the physical evidence reveals. When not enough evidence has been accumulated to determine the truth, it is scientific to methodically investigate until the truth is known.

Scientists are investigating very specific phenomena. If you're trying to figure out why water boils, the origin of water is irrelevant. If you're trying to figure out how specific organisms adapt to specific conditions, the origin of life is irrelevant.


True. But I think the controversy is not if evolution is real or not. Isn't the argument all about life by God vs life by random selection?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ah, so you are not speaking of Biological Evolution, you are speaking of Abiogenesis.

You may think they are the same, but that is like dismissing geology because we cannot see planets being formed NOW in our own solar system. You know, NOW!

Oh be original.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Natural selection doesn't speculate as to the origin of life. This is what you're not understanding...

I understand it. What you do not understand is in the absence of God you must believe something you can not prove too. The Start of Life. You do know what too means?
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
I understand it. What you do not understand is in the absence of God you must believe something you can not prove too. The Start of Life. You do know what too means?

I can prove the start of life just fine. There's life now, so it had to have started. I can't prove how life started, but the theory of evolution doesn't seek to, and neither do I.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
I understand it. What you do not understand is in the absence of God you must believe something you can not prove too. The Start of Life. You do know what too means?
OK, lets say God started life in the "primordial ooze", that God gave the spark of life to the first organism.

This still does not change the Theory of Evolution in explaining the facts of Biological Evolution.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A note: It is not ME calling "gibberish" a "personal attack" OR I know what you are going to say.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are assuming I feel like I've made my point. But I am just having some fun. It is fun, isn't it?
 
Top