Evolution & Creation: What if God made Evolution?

[Sapiens]

I believe God did inform us in sufficient detail for us to know he did not use macro evolution to create the stunning variety of life that fills the earth. Of man in particular, the Bible reveals he was created, not evolved. (Genesis 2:7)

Your interpretation of the Bible claims, nothing more. All the actual evidence aligns against your claim, however.

 

[Godobeyer]

Spoken like someone who have idea of what evolution means.

Evolution is not a study about the origin of first life.

The study of how life form, or the origin of life, belongs to abiogenesis, not evolution.

It has nothing to do with "first" this or "first" that.

Even the word "evolution" relates to or mean "evolving", about "change". Life have to already exist, for there to be changes, and changes occurred over a period of x-number of "generations" (hence "time", but time as a measure of generations, not hours or years), and changes come about by hereditary, hence it is related to "genetics".

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is dealing with how life came about from non-living matters. In abiogenesis, scientists study how it is possible to produce DNA from non-living molecules or non-living matters.

Look at abiogenesis and evolution in this analogy. If evolution is like car's motors, and biologists are like automotive engineers and mechanics, then all the mechanics and engineers need to know is how the engine or motor work.

The engineers and mechanics don't need to know to work in a mine or where to mine for aluminium, iron or any other metal used in motor. And they don't needs to know how to make all the parts that are part of motor. All they need to do is buy the parts, that have already been pre-made and assemble them.

They don't need to know how to find or how to extract oil from the ground, how to refine the oil, etc. That's not the job of motor mechanics.

Abiogenesis, in this analogy would be the like metals or oil. Someone else, who have knowledge and skills would work in the mine, foundry, oil platform or refinery.

Getting back to evolution and abiogenesis. Both evolution and abiogenesis are distinct areas of studies. Sure, it is related, but people who study evolution, don't require to know or be the expert in understanding how first life formed from non-living matters.

The people who study viruses and make vaccines, wouldn't even bother to study the first ancient virus, because it is not possible to take sample of first virus. The study of viral diseases, immunities and vaccines require people to have understanding of evolution, like mutations and natural selection; they don't need to know abiogenesis.

I don't claim I know everything about evolution theories.
I am in study of them by Dr Adnan Ibrahim eposides (about 31 eposide) each one about 1 hour.

Making exemple or giving name does not give evidence how all species appears include humans. it's just speculation.

 

[mojtaba]

Seriously, say God made Evolution, left things to chance, and what came out on top is His creation.

Would it be such a bad thing if both sides were to accept that possibility? No one knows how we or anything was made. Did God leave specific notes about how he created everything? Course not.

The only bit about Religion vs Science is neither side knows an there's a definitive chance that God made Science and INTENTIONALLY made it easy for Science to play against him.
If we automatically just knew, there'd be no point in discovery.

I think that there is no problem that we believe that God has created the species, besides Adam and Eve, through the evolution.

But, I am not agree with this part of your saying, ' [God] left things to chance'. Because, there is no chance. Everything happens because of a reason. For example, mistake of DNA polymerase which results in mutation is not according to chance. If some specific conditions exist, DNA polymerase errs. The errors do not occur without any reason.

 

[gnostic]

I don't claim I know everything about evolution theories.
I am in study of them by Dr Adnan Ibrahim eposides (about 31 eposide) each one about 1 hour.

Making exemple or giving name does not give evidence how all species appears include humans. it's just speculation.

Sorry, but in the Qur'an, Adam supposedly got into a name-the-animal contest with Iblis. Knowing how many different animals there are, and different species, I'd doubt Adam have time to name every single one of those species.

Believing in such contest taking place, is merely taken as faith and speculation. And there are no evidences to support it. The Qur'an don't even give us these list of names (kinds or species) of animals. Don't you find that the lack of details in the Qur'an, show you that the author don't really know what he is talking about?

Second, speaking of evidences: according to the Qur'an, god supposedly made Adam from clay and water.

This myth is not even original or unique myth. The Sumerian versions, dating back to the late 3rd millennium BCE, have at least four versions that I know of. The Akkadian-Babylonian versions, I know another 4 different myths.

But whether you use the Islamic version or the Jewish version or the various Sumerian-Akkadian versions, it all point to no evidences to support that man was ever made clay, soil or dust.

The reality is that humans are not made out of clay. Sure, an artist could possibly shape a man, out of clay, just as a sculptor could chisel a realistic looking sculptures made out of marbles or bronze, but like these marble and bronze, it is not possible to give life to clay.

Do you have a single shred of evidence that life can be given to clay?

Do you even know what clay is made out of? The atoms that make up of (clay) molecule?

There are not a single clay molecule in a human body, only demonstrates that you believing in a clay-made man to be nothing more than absurd superstition.

That clearly show to me that Qur'an is not only "not scientific": it shows to me that the Islamic creation provide false information of what man is made of.

 

[rusra02]

No. the first day only mention light being created, not the sun. The only time the sun is mentioned, is on the 4th day.

The thing is, if you are correct in your interpretation that the earth was created for unspecified length of time, BEFORE the creative days, then the earth was created long before the sun.

Science indicated that the sun is actually older than the earth, not the other way around as described in Genesis it.

And long before the earth, and even before the formation of our solar system, there were older stars, more ancient than our sun. But in Genesis 1, no stars were created until the 4th day, like our sun and moon.

And you are still making your usual apologetic excuses, without basis in reality and logic.

According to Genesis, light was created on the 1st day, atmosphere on the 2nd day, and the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day. Your argument that the sun was made on the 1st day, but couldn't be seen because the atmosphere covered the earth, until the 4th day...is rubbish.

It is rubbish because, not only the sun wasn't mentioned on the 1st day, but there were also no atmosphere on the 1st day to cover the earth.

If there were no atmosphere until the 2nd day, then you really can't say the sun can't be seen on the 1st day because of the atmosphere is blocking the sun from being seen.

Don't you even see that your comment is contradicting Genesis description of creation?

The heavens and earth were created long prior to the first creative day, "in the beginning". If the Sun was not created until the 4th creative day, where do you suppose the light came from? The Bible does not describe in detail conditions on earth before Jehovah began preparing it for life. It does tell us "there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." The light from the sun did not reach the earth's surface until day one. Why? Obviously something was blocking the light from reaching earth's surface.
I don't think I said the sun could not be seen on day one because of the atmosphere blocking the sun. Rather, the sun could not be seen prior to day four because of atmospheric conditions.
I simply don't agree with your claim that God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4.

 

[rusra02]

Again you are wrong.

Yes, Genesis does describe man being created.

But no...evolution has nothing to do with "creation", particularly on the origin of life. And Evolution isn't about cosmology.

Evolution is about life changing, over period of time. It never describes life magically appearing from nothing; and it has nothing to do with first life. Evolution required parents and offspring, where parents passed their genes on to offspring. Evolution required life to already exist, for any changes or evolution to take place.

You have already been told this countless time since you have joined RF. How many more times must people tell you that you don't understand evolution or even basic biology, before you become dishonest fool, who is unwilling to learn?

I'm not sure how what you wrote refutes the fact that God did not use evolution to create or produce the stunning variety of living things on earth. I am pretty sure you, like some other evolutionists, resort to name-calling and insults as a bullying tactic.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why would God have done that? Was he bored or something?

The problem is people anthropomorphizing the concept of god, portraying it like a person who thinks and feels like us simians and who is separate from 'his' creation.

 

[rusra02]

Your interpretation of the Bible claims, nothing more. All the actual evidence aligns against your claim, however.

What evidence, particularly?

 

[Godobeyer]

Sorry, but in the Qur'an, Adam supposedly got into a name-the-animal contest with Iblis. Knowing how many different animals there are, and different species, I'd doubt Adam have time to name every single one of those species.

No, you wrong .
In Qur'an was not Adam(pbuh) supposedly got into a name-the-animal contest with Iblis.

It's God tell to angels that He made different version of human (smart one).
you need to read more about Islam.

It's funny that you discuss"details" of an exemple,and ignore the idea/concept.

Believing in such contest taking place, is merely taken as faith and speculation. And there are no evidences to support it. The Qur'an don't even give us these list of names (kinds or species) of animals. Don't you find that the lack of details
Second, speaking of evidences: according to the Qur'an, god supposedly made Adam from clay and water.

This myth is not even original or unique myth. The Sumerian versions, dating back to the late 3rd millennium BCE, have at least four versions that I know of. The Akkadian-Babylonian versions, I know another 4 different myths.

But whether you use the Islamic version or the Jewish version or the various Sumerian-Akkadian versions, it all point to no evidences to support that man was ever made clay, soil in the Qur'an, show you that the author don't really know what he is talking about?
or dust.

The reality is that humans are not made out of clay. Sure, an artist could possibly shape a man, out of clay, just as a sculptor could chisel a realistic looking sculptures made out of marbles or bronze, but like these marble and bronze, it is not possible to give life to clay.


Do you have a single shred of evidence that life can be given to clay?

Do you even know what clay is made out of? The atoms that make up of (clay) molecule?

There are not a single clay molecule in a human body, only demonstrates that you believing in a clay-made man to be nothing more than absurd superstition.

That clearly show to me that Qur'an is not only "not scientific": it shows to me that the Islamic creation provide false information of what man is made of.

In Islam view ,many believe there may were versions of human before Adam(pbuh), but they had low intelligence.



Clay that we made from, is God issue, so I can say it's easy to human body to decomposing and become belong to dust.


Here is the problem , many atheists believe that human and other species evolve from nothing by nothing through millions of years. that's sounds crazy to me, and suicide of mind.

 

[Father Heathen]

What evidence, particularly?

*asked as he clinches his eyes tightly closed*

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The problem is people anthropomorphizing the concept of god, portraying it like a person who thinks and feels like us simians and who is separate from 'his' creation.

Yes, it is a problem, but perhaps it's inevitable that man creates God in his own image. But then it is all speculation anyway. To me it is like speculating about whether Santa Claus is a leg or a breast man.

 

[Windwalker]

Alright, if this god is all knowing and all powerful, it planted the seeds for evolution knowing exactly what was going to happen.
This action transcends sadism, it is the most evil thing I've ever heard of, but that's besides the point.

Do you consider evolution to be evil?

 

[Windwalker]

There isn't a goal, or at least it can't be demonstrated that there is one.

You don't think survival is a goal?

Even if there were, our species has advanced to the point where we make our own goals and evolve ourselves via technology.

Certainly, biocultural feedback systems are definitely a factor. But those exist in other species as well as our own. We just take that to a new level. Oddly, that process can and appears to be leading to our own species-suicide, making highly dumb choices of what is considered good, like a snake eating its own tail and creating a whole culture amplifying that behavior.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Do you consider evolution to be evil?

No, it is simply a process.
However, a creator of any such cruel process would very much be evil, imo.

You don't think survival is a goal?

I consider it a function, but I can see how it might be considered a goal.

Certainly, biocultural feedback systems are definitely a factor. But those exist in other species as well as our own. We just take that to a new level. Oddly, that process can and appears to be leading to our own species-suicide, making highly dumb choices of what is considered good, like a snake eating its own tail and creating a whole culture amplifying that behavior.

I don't think I disagree with you here.

 

[viole]

Seriously, say God made Evolution, left things to chance, and what came out on top is His creation.

Would it be such a bad thing if both sides were to accept that possibility? No one knows how we or anything was made. Did God leave specific notes about how he created everything? Course not.

The only bit about Religion vs Science is neither side knows an there's a definitive chance that God made Science and INTENTIONALLY made it easy for Science to play against him.
If we automatically just knew, there'd be no point in discovery.

I tend to exclude that the Christian God made evolution. Or any other benevolent, omnimax God that knows what He wants, and can do it efficiently and clean.

Do we really want to believe that God programmed the ruthless arm race between species, in which the weakest succumbs eaten by another creature that would itself die when it runs out of prey to kill and eat? Do we really want to believe that He programmed the extinction, over billions of years, of 99% of all species? That He fine tuned the trajectory and timing of destructive asteroids, vulcanoes, eartquakes, climate changes and the demise of the mammals competion, so that a little rat like creature could get out from its stinking hole in order to eventually slowly turn into someone in His image?

I question the efficiency, benevolence, ommnipotence ang goal orientedness of this eugenetic God, who is virtually equivalent to blnd and amoral naturalism, and therefore, superflous. And that is why, if I were a Christian again, I would probably reject evolution in the strongest way. For God and evolution are indeed mutually exclusive and holding both beliefs does violence to both the Bible and science. I think.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

What evidence, particularly?

Try using google to catch up before you importune others and waste their time: https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

 

[rusra02]

Try using google to catch up before you importune others and waste their time: https://ncse.com/node/16774

You made the claim. Citing an internet link proves nothing.

 

[Sapiens]

You made the claim.

What claim was that? I said, "Your interpretation of the Bible claims, nothing more. All the actual evidence aligns against your claim, however." Nice try at shifting the burden ... but that dog don't hunt.

Citing an internet link proves nothing.

You have demonstrated that you do not respond to logic. You have demonstrated that it is impossible to teach you anything about evolution. There is nothing left but to point you to sources and hope that some day you see the abysmal errors of your ways, thus ... I offer you a useful citation whose contents you should consider.

 

[Windwalker]

No, it is simply a process.
However, a creator of any such cruel process would very much be evil, imo.

That's an interesting understanding. I certainly agree its a process, however I'm not sure why you consider the struggle of life necessary to bring forth life should be considered with a certain disdain to the process. I hear you project a certain intention that you may have if you were to design the system yourself. Yet it seems to me you imagine that life should happen magically, if you were to have the reigns as "Designer"? The reason I say that is because you would imagine a "happier" evolution? You would imagine if you could write the book of life, as it were, you would design it to be less painful, more pleasant, full of rainbows and campfire songs?

I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but people always imagine God in the image of what they would want to see God be. I don't see evolution incompatible with the idea of God. But it is incompatible with an idea of God that imagines God to be that of the dreams of our blissfully ignorant youth. But that's more about our ideas, it seems.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Seriously, say God made Evolution, left things to chance, and what came out on top is His creation.

Would it be such a bad thing if both sides were to accept that possibility? No one knows how we or anything was made. Did God leave specific notes about how he created everything? Course not.

The only bit about Religion vs Science is neither side knows an there's a definitive chance that God made Science and INTENTIONALLY made it easy for Science to play against him.
If we automatically just knew, there'd be no point in discovery.

So God set up all the excruciatingly specific circumstances necessary to create and harbor life in his creation... and then left the rest to blind chance.. And so the ultimate result of a species able to ponder that creation, capable of deducing the existence of the creator, and give thanks for it... just a bizarre coincidence!? Not impossible I suppose!, but isn't it far less improbable, that life simply developed as did physical reality, according to specific plans?