Evolution & Creation: What if God made Evolution?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Magic pixies sounds like something out of children's superstitions, thats why the "ummm no".

Pixies are something out of religion, actually. Historically, plenty of people believed in pixies, fairies, sprites, and other magical creatures sincerely as elements of their religions. It's just that once we no longer have real live adherents of those religions around to tell everyone that they're reasonable, they become ridiculous.

IMO: the only relevant difference between pixies and God is that people still believe in God, but they've generally stopped believing in pixies.

Be like a debate about Telsa vs Einstein, then someone brings Barney the purple dinosaur.

So God is like Tesla or Einstein? What about God makes you come to that conclusion?

Also God or Highly Advanced Aliens just sounds more plausible for the Creation side, though I bet many of them wouldn't go with Aliens as they'll probably say "No! There must be a God, nothing else!"

What makes God sound plausible to you?

 

[Godobeyer]

Actually, nothing.

Although that is not at all central to Evolution anyway.

Odds are that life did originate from random chemical reactions, but it might as well be some other way, including divine design, for all the difference it actuall makes.

What the Theory of Evolution really deals with is what happened after the origin of life.

But there is no prove theory of evolution is origin of life.

I bet millions of years could not made an organ, not a body.

That is simply wrong. We know for a fact that cellular reproduction, mutation and speciation occur.

For First cell ever, it will die alone,so where the reproduction came from ?
So that tissue will died in end too. giving life and structure bodies is not easy as you think buddy.

Bacteria die and reproduce. Again, it is not like there are any doubts on this matter.

So fire too.

here is another problem, I am talking about first DNA, or First protein cell. bacteria had nothing to do with origin of life.

 

[LuisDantas]

But there is no prove theory of evolution is origin of life.

True, but not of very much significance for various independent reasons.

Even if we knew for a fact that life originated by divine design (which I very much doubt, but let's run with it for argument's sake), that would make biological evolution no less true and no less demonstrated than it is already.

Evolution is a known and very well-supported reality of biology. There is no room to truly "doubt" it anymore.

I bet millions of years could not made an organ, not a body.

Sorry, but all that means is that you could affort to learn more about biology.

For First cell ever, it will die alone,so where the reproduction came from ?

By way of cellular division (mitosis). That is what bacteria do, and how they survive.

There is no mystery there.

So that tissue will died in end too. giving life and structure bodies is not easy as you think buddy.

I don't know what to tell you. You seem to be claiming that monocellular lifeforms could not survive, then that they could not evolve into pluricellular lifeforms.

Both claims are simply wrong.

So fire too.

What of fire?

here is another problem, I am talking about first DNA, or First protein cell. bacteria had nothing to do with origin of life.

DNA is a relatively simple molecule. Odds are that it developed by chance out of environmental, simpler molecules and turned out to be capable of bulding rough copies of itself.

What are you calling protein cells?

The origin of life does indeed go back further than bacteria.

 

[Godobeyer]

True,

Enough !

Sorry, but all that means is that you could affort to learn more about biology.

prove me wrong.
biology is actual science to observe.

I don't know what to tell you. You seem to be claiming that monocellular lifeforms could not survive, then that they could not evolve into pluricellular lifeforms.

Both claims are simply wrong.

I am not wrong ,when cell or couple cells died , so end of story.

btw
If you body died ,is could be a part of your body survive alone in isolate ?

DNA is a relatively simple molecule. Odds are that it developed by chance out of environmental, simpler molecules and turned out to be capable of bulding rough copies of itself.

This observation what we get,not what happened.

What are you calling protein cells?

Our bodies structure is made by protein cells, right ?

Started from Zygote, and before zygote there were many complex steps....etc

 

[Godobeyer]

@LuisDantas

it's does not make sense to me ,but logically if theory of evolution is about body updates through time.

so we can say there was a man with one eye lung, or without heart, without sexual organs , so by million years become actual human ?

 

[idav]

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.

Its certainly true that the earth could just be Gods giant petri dish in which case both evolution and intelligent design would be true.

To me the potential for life appears to be embedded somehow in earth and likely the cosmos.

It doesn't appear as if even the earth were created in a manner many creationists suggest. So then God ends up being thrown further into the past to the point that God would just create the universe and wait billions of years for evolution to crop up. In that scenario it doesn't even seem apparent that evolution would even be intended but just a byproduct of some universe experiment.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a**. Why speculate about what a being might do until you have demonstrated his existence first?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Would it be such a bad thing if both sides were to accept that possibility?

Sure, we can accept it as a possibility. The question is, is everyone also willing to accept an infinite number of other things as a possibility?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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.

Maybe he is evil and sadistic. We should accept it as a possibility.

 

[Gyrannon]

Why speculate about what a being might do until you have demonstrated his existence first?

Because everything we've been doing since the God debate started is Speculate. I'm talking about possibility, trying to prove or disprove it however is pointless - Do it for science: science always believes "God doesn't exist, just like the Easter Bunny & Slenderman". Do it for belief an they'll always say "Oh god definitely exists because... Bible."

 

[randomvim]

@LuisDantas

it's does not make sense to me ,but logically if theory of evolution is about body updates through time.

so we can say there was a man with one eye lung, or without heart, without sexual organs , so by million years become actual human ?

what? evolution is adaptations to our environment over time. like different colored/pigment skin to hide from hunters, long tongues to catch prey, etc.

growing missing organs or limbs would not be apart of that though a creature may get the ability to regenerate parts of the body.

 

[Godobeyer]

what? evolution is adaptations to our environment over time. like different colored/pigment skin to hide from hunters, long tongues to catch prey, etc.

growing missing organs or limbs would not be apart of that though a creature may get the ability to regenerate parts of the body.

bull**** facts on ground is deny yours.
If you prove to me that could human could adapte without brain or heart or lungs ?

My point is valid,
truth is there is some humans suffered just by damage renal, just try to go to hospital and tell them to adapt with that misery situation.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Sorry, but evolution is not something a god "created".

Evolution is process, where it required genetics, adults passing their genes to offspring, hence hereditary. And in biology, evolution is process of number of generations...well, unless you are talking about viruses, then that's a different matter.

There are no hereditary in creation.

 

[gnostic]

That is not what the Bible really says, of course. It was long before the first creative period, or "day", that God created the heavens (including our sun) and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) During the first creative day, Jehovah made light from the sun shine on earth's surface, previously shrouded in darknes. It was on the fourth day that the expanse or atmosphere cleared up sufficiently for the light sources themselves to be seen on earth. "Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so." (Genesis 1:14,15) I believe prior to the fourth creative epoch, diffused light from the sun was sufficient to allow for the plant life Jehovah created on the third creative day, although the source of that light could not be seen on earth until later.

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?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

So God being the creator who could be the one who made Evolution, that sounds ridiculous? How? Why?
If God is capable of anything, what could be wrong in accepting the possibility that he made Evolution?

Also, my argument is that they are both the same. God creating evolution, he can still say "I created you" even if he left it all to chance.

It wasn't God. The other f- tard in the garden did. It inspired the knowledge of good and evil. Even though men try to imitate the animal they are not. When you get out all you see is stupid animal clothes on me lol. I'm human but I got animal clothes on. So you as the observer do you see the loin cloth or do you see a human being with that perception.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

It's murdering love, as God made it, to only see me as an animal. Oh but I forgive them.

 

[gnostic]

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)

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?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Or they call you a dumb a s s .. Neanderthal.. monkey (re introduction of the knowledge of good and evil) perhaps because you wont buy it or need it. Oh well you must be less then human than. The argument is still inconsistent with reality.

 

[gnostic]

But there is no prove theory of evolution is origin of life.

I bet millions of years could not made an organ, not a body.



For First cell ever, it will die alone,so where the reproduction came from ?
So that tissue will died in end too. giving life and structure bodies is not easy as you think buddy.



So fire too.

here is another problem, I am talking about first DNA, or First protein cell. bacteria had nothing to do with origin of life.

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.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

That's "God as a trickster" a construct rejected by most believers.