What if it was created by God to evolve?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Subductionzone had asked me why creation was obvious.

The OP in this thread ponders weather God created life to evolve. I believe that to be the case.

But the origins of life are very much a scientific subject.

I'll go with the science instead of your irrelevant religious beliefs.

And when @Subduction Zone asked you that question, he did so because your claim overlapped with the scientific domain. You made a claim about physical reality. That very much is science's playing field.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your spaghetti religion is registered as a religion. Have you ever heard of irony?

Ow I understand the irony of that "religion". It seems like you don't though, thinking it is all serious and actually believed.
Which is both hilarious as well as pathetic.

But yes, I do realize that you are here to mock religion

I am not.

and that the spaghetti religion was created to do the same.

To an extent, yes. Also to make a point. A point that clearly flies over your head.

All mocking aside, the Atheist religion is a "belief"

It is not.

which try's to justify itself with science.

it does not.

 

[F1fan]

I never made the claim that science cares about my beliefs. Real science is concerned only with facts not the religious beliefs of the scientist.

So you admit that religion and facts are not compatible. Then why do you cite religious texts for your claims when only factual evidence is accepted? You seem to know you are being deceptive.

103:7.7 (1138.5) What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

103:7.8 (1138.6) The truth—an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values—can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality.

103:7.9 (1139.1) The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics, but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty." UB 1955

Irrelevant, this is not valid or factual.

 

[F1fan]

God cannot be judged by anyone so in that respect God is not a moral agent.

Sure we can. It's not as if what you refer to as a God is real. You present some claim of a God that you have decided is true, without evidence. If what you claim is God acts in ways that we humans conclude is immoral the only defense can come from you since all Gods are absent. It's notable that Gods like yours are always expained by fallible mortals, like yourself, so to claim exemption from moral judgment by others is false. Until an actual God comes forth and asserts itself without a human representative or book can there be an abbsolute moral be stated and defended. Mortals don't get to declare their gods as eempt from moral judgment by others. We have the freedom to judge your God, and as you see, we use it.

In reality we aren't judging any actual God, we are judging your conception of God, and your own thinking in regards to what and why you believe this God is real and acts as you believe.

God is the one who judges everyone else.

That is dogma, not a fact.

Do you understand that your religious dogma is not factual? You keep repeating what you believe as if we will accept it. Even if we were debating how Christians interpret Christian ideas these ideas still are not factual.

 

[F1fan]

Subductionzone had asked me why creation was obvious.

The OP in this thread ponders weather God created life to evolve. I believe that to be the case.

1. We don't care what you believe. 2. If you are going to say what you believe about some question or assertion we expect you to honor the rles of discourse and provide evidence (if you have any that is valid) and the reasoning involved, (unless you are using faith).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would something less complex need a builder, but something that is orders of magnitude more complex, not?

Complexity is not a factor. Natural pathways can proceed to some complex structures.

The differences between a building and a living cell include the fact that there is no natural process that can bring bricks and lumber and nails together the way nature can bring the ingredients of life floating in a solvent together. Bricks and lumber don't exist naturally in those forms, but the ingredients of life do. Organic molecules fuse together just by being close and having the right charge and matter configurations, but bricks can't mortar themselves together nor lumber nail itself into a framework. Also, a building is not selected for (or against) by nature, but living things are. Buildings have no blueprints absent intelligent designers (architects), but living things contain genetic material and mechanisms for realizing them phenotypically.

And as far as irreducible goes… how did the one thing that makes proteins, DNA, originate from proteins? They’re necessary for DNA to form. IOW, you can’t make DNA without proteins, and you can’t make proteins without DNA. A very real chicken-and-the-egg dilemma.

You're correct that this problem needs a naturalistic solution to call abiogenesis a naturalistic process. Here's where we face a potential irreducible complexity problem before biological evolution. I don't know the science here very well, but there appear to be molecules that have a dual function of storing codon sequences while performing the function of enzymes:

"Ribozymes (ribonucleic acid enzymes) are RNA molecules that have the ability to catalyze specific biochemical reactions, including RNA splicing in gene expression, similar to the action of protein enzymes."

To claim it happened naturally, without a Mind to build it… do you think that requires faith?

Yes, but that's not the claim of science. The claim is that it may have happened that way, and they're checking to see if nature is up to the task of self-organizing life.

Please be careful not to transform what is claimed into something else. For example, I say that I don't believe in gods and read back that I said there were no gods. The proper claim is to list all logical possibilities that cannot be ruled out, and if possible, order their likelihood using Occam's parsimony principle as a guide, and then study these where possible. Since only naturalistic hypotheses can be studied, that's where we look for answers, and they just keep coming centuries later using that approach (empiricism).

Program humans to not stray from a path of righteousness? Doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of having independence/responsibility?

It defeats sin. The Abrahamic religions describe a god that hates sin and even unsuccessfully tried to remove it from earth with a flood. He was punishing that "independence." This is the gist of the argument against a tri-omni god existing. Believers tell us what this all-knowing and all-powerful god expects from man, and that it even offered a blood sacrifice to help man escape perdition despite his sin nature, yet it can't find this simple solution to the problem. That's not credible.

I'm purely saying that you are speaking in a context of having choice.. No choice, and you wouldn't be able to speak against what G-d had programmed you to believe/do.

OK. That sounds good. I'd prefer to have no objection to how I was created. If your beliefs are correct, I'm doomed. I have no choice but to be a skeptic and empiricist. It's how nature or supernature made me. If I find myself in hell, believers will say, "We told you so," but their words had no persuasive power, so telling me their unfalsifiable beliefs had no chance of persuading me. If I end up in hell, I will speak against that god for eternity and wish I could kill it or throw it in hell with me for creating the place and putting me there. That's a god that all of the souls in hell would be justified in killing if they could.

How about I just reject it ALL? It doesn't make sense, and I still require that before belief.

As usual you are just looking to pick fights with religious people. You asked my opinion not defend a dissertation. It’s always been obvious to me that life has a creator. I don’t need to prove that to you!

As usual for these threads, the apologist frames dissent as attack. What seems obvious to you is of no value to the critical thinker if he doesn't find it obvious himself.

It began with the theory of “spontaneous generation” among scientific minds and evolved into abiogenesis which is effectively Genesis among Atheist scientists.

That's an acceptable description. "Genesis derives via Latin from the Greek gignesthai, meaning "to be born," and can refer to the origin or beginning of anything from a heavenly body to an idea."

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster consisted of thousands of followers,[44] primarily concentrated on college campuses in North America and Europe.[62] According to the Associated Press, Henderson's website has become "a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of intelligent design". On it, visitors track meetings of pirate-clad Pastafarians, sell trinkets and bumper stickers, and sample photographs that show "visions" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[63]

That's a religion to you? That's young people learning in universities and exactly why so many clergy and zealous parents don't want them going there for fear of them losing religion.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
"Physics and chemistry create every day."

Yes. They've created hurricanes and earthquakes recently. They create the rain and the tides. And they create new life in eggs, wombs, and elsewhere every moment of every day without intelligent oversight. Did you care to try to rebut that or just quote it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

so in that respect God is not a moral agent.
God is the one who judges everyone else.

That's what a moral agent is - one who makes moral judgments.

God can give one person a wonderful life with health for 100 years and God can make others suffer in a short life.

So can nature without gods. In fact, that's what we expect absent tri-omni oversight.

you judge God from ignorance of reasons that God has. if I read a novel I can judge a character not just on what they do but on reasons for that etc etc.

Yes, you consider the reasons given. The Abrahamic god doesn't give reasons or explanations, just commandments. One must glean from the mythology that that it hates to be disobeyed, but I still don't know its alleged reasons for punishing what it calls sin, and so I judge the choice without them according to my humanist values. I call that intolerant, and absent any justifiable reason for punishing people for being human, irrational.

Certainly in God's eyes humans are guilty

And vice versa in my case, but I'm just judging a character depicted in a book. I don't blame this deity any more than I do Santa for putting coals in stockings for not making one's bed in the morning as "commanded" by Mom and Dad.

We learn what is right and what is wrong from our parents and ultimately from our maker. We are not the source of morality.

I am the source of my moral values, or more correctly, my conscience is, and I discovered them there. They don't come from a book or a pulpit. They don't come from my parents, either.

The Law of Moses has plenty of both reward and punishment

Disagree. It's essentially a list of commands of what to do and whatnot to do with admonitions against not obeying them. The reward from god for compliance would be to not be smitten. What rewards from that law do you envision that equal the punishments (cast from paradise to toil, suffer, then die over an apple, a murderous, global flood, etc.)

Christianity is full of encouragement. You look at what is being told to those outside the faith.

Christianity encourages belief by faith, as well as obedience and submission to an alleged god. Oh, and love God and one another, although what passes for love in that religion is cringe-worthy. God so loved man that created a torture pit to put the ones in who didn't accept his love offer of a blood sacrifice in. Another fine example is the treatment called "hate the sin, love the sinner," which is indistinguishable from bigotry if the sin is the "abomination" of homosexuality or the "abomination" of atheism.

Jesus is anathema for Jews for a number of reasons. The idea that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and died for our guilt and rose again and will come back is rational but not in the Jewish context of a Messiah and the context of Jesus being anathema.

Jesus didn't meet the criteria for a messiah much less fulfilled it. Jesus was just another religious zealot doing what activist, religious fundamentalists do. Jesus changed nothing, much less did the things a messiah must to be considered that - change the world. We're surrounded by such people today with a similar biography and accomplishments. They're ordinary people, not messiahs.

My former pastor is still doing missionary work decades after I left Christianity. He has disciples. He travels to preach. How's he different from Jesus regarding messiahship?

"Terry King often says, “I love to train and resource leaders!” Terry’s teaching and equipping calling has taken him across the United States and to forty one countries. Terry has served as a trainer, leadership coach, mentor, pastor, conference and seminar speaker, college instructor and academic dean. Married to Linda in 1972, the Kings have been based in Hagerstown, Maryland since 1993, having previously lived in Zimbabwe for five years and the Philippines for four years." source

Which part of post 142 are you referring to?

You wrote, "What anyone believes about the origins of life is believed by faith and isn't knowledge." I answered, "Like many others, I have knowledge there, and no faith is involved. I provided it already in this thread at post 142"

This part:

There are only a few logical possibilities [for the origin of life on earth]. The first two are much more likely than the third, which is more likely than the fourth:

Life formed by naturalistic abiogenesis on earth.
Life formed naturalistically on another heavenly body and was delivered to earth by an impact.
Life was intelligently designed on earth by advanced extraterrestrials who themselves arose naturalistically long before earth existed.
Life was intelligently designed by a god - a conscious agent preceding, creating, and transcending nature.

I think this list is exhaustive and its elements mutually exclusive, meaning that the correct answer must appear on it as one of the choices. But I don't think one can say more at this time, and maybe never even if a path (or several) for the chemical evolution of life is elucidated.

If you can find a flaw there, please point it out. If you can't, you can neither call it wrong nor unfalsifiable. That leaves "correct," makingit knowledge.

 

[Colt]

Complexity is not a factor. Natural pathway that can proceed to some complex structures.

The differences between a building and a living cell include the fact that there is no natural process that can bring bricks and lumber and nails together the way nature can bring the ingredients of life floating in a solvent together. Bricks and lumber don't exist naturally in those forms, but the ingredients of life do. Organic molecules fuse together just by being close and having the right charge and matter configurations, but bricks can't mortar themselves together nor lumber nail itself into a framework. Also, a building is not selected for (or against) by nature, but living things are. Buildings have no blueprints absent intelligent designers (architects), but living things contain genetic material and mechanisms for realizing them phenotypically.

You're correct that this problem needs a naturalistic solution to call abiogenesis a naturalistic process. Here's where we face a potential irreducible complexity problem before biological evolution. I don't know the science here very well, but there appear to be molecules that have a dual function of storing codon sequences which performing the function of enzymes:

"Ribozymes (ribonucleic acid enzymes) are RNA molecules that have the ability to catalyze specific biochemical reactions, including RNA splicing in gene expression, similar to the action of protein enzymes."

Yes, but that's not the claim of science. The claim is that it may have happened that way, and their checking to see if nature is up to the task of self-organizing life. Please be careful not to transform what is claimed into something else. For example, I say that I don't believe in gods and read back that I said there were no gods. The proper claim is to list all logical possibilities that cannot be ruled out, and if possible, order their likelihood using Occam's parsimony principle as a guide, and then study these where possible. Since only naturalistic hypotheses can be studied, that's where we look for answers, and they just keep coming centuries later using that approach (empiricism).

It defeats sin. The Abrahamic religions describe a god that hates sin and even unsuccessfully tried to remove it from earth with a flood. He was punishing that "independence." This is the gist of the argument against a tri-omni god existing. Believers tell us what this all-knowing and all-powerful god expects from man, and that it even offered a blood sacrifice to help man escape perdition despite his sin nature, yet it can't find this simple solution to the problem. That's not credible.

OK. That sounds good. I'd prefer to have no objection to how I was created. If your beliefs are correct, I'm doomed. I have no choice but to be a skeptic and empiricist. It's how nature or supernature made me. If I find myself in hell, believers will say, "We told you so," but their words had no persuasive power, so telling me their unfalsifiable beliefs had no chance of persuading me. If I end up in hell, I will speak against that god for eternity and wish I could kill it or throw it in hell with me for creating the place and putting me there. That's a god that all of the souls in hell would be justified in killing if they could.

How about I just reject it ALL? It doesn't make sense, and I still require that before belief.

As usual for these threads, the apologist frames dissent as attack. What seems obvious to you is of no value to the critical thinker if he doesn't find it obvious himself.

That's an acceptable description. "Genesis derives via Latin from the Greek gignesthai, meaning "to be born," and can refer to the origin or beginning of anything from a heavenly body to an idea."

That's a religion to you? That's young people learning in universities and exactly why so many clergy and zealous parents don't want them going there for fear of them losing religion.

Yes. They've created hurricanes and earthquakes recently. They create the rain and the tides. And they create new life in eggs, wombs, and elsewhere every moment of every day without intelligent oversight. Did you care to try to rebut that or just quote it?

IMOP, well stated wherever it comes from.

"To science God is a possibility, to psychology a desirability, to philosophy a probability, to religion a certainty, an actuality of religious experience. Reason demands that a philosophy which cannot find the God of probability should be very respectful of that religious faith which can and does find the God of certitude. Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling.

102:6.9 (1125.4) The facts of evolution must not be arrayed against the truth of the reality of the certainty of the spiritual experience of the religious living of the God-knowing mortal. Intelligent men should cease to reason like children and should attempt to use the consistent logic of adulthood, logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact. Scientific materialism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower. Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator.

102:6.10 (1125.5) Organic evolution is a fact; purposive or progressive evolution is a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. The higher any scientist progresses in his chosen science, the more will he abandon the theories of materialistic fact in favor of the cosmic truth of the dominance of the Supreme Mind. Materialism cheapens human life; the gospel of Jesus tremendously enhances and supernally exalts every mortal. Mortal existence must be visualized as consisting in the intriguing and fascinating experience of the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divine and saving downreach." UB 1955

 

[Subduction Zone]

It began with the theory of “spontaneous generation” among scientific minds and evolved into abiogenesis which is effectively Genesis among Atheist scientists.

No. You are making false accusations again. That has nothing to do with atheism. You want to believe a silly myth and so you are accusing others of the same sin. If anything spontaneous generation was a creationist myth since it was based upon a nonexistent life force.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop the presses!

@Colt actually got something right for a change.

I would say religion should have nothing to do with science. They should be nonoverlapping magisteria. But our friend here is trying to have religion rule over science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subductionzone had asked me why creation was obvious.

The OP in this thread ponders weather God created life to evolve. I believe that to be the case.

That is your belief. It does not explain why creation is supposedly obvious. To me you keep admitting that it is not obvious.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. That sounds good. I'd prefer to have no objection to how I was created. If your beliefs are correct, I'm doomed. I have no choice but to be a skeptic and empiricist. It's how nature or supernature made me..

That is just an excuse .. we can change our opinions, if we have a reason.

There is a reason why we have been made independent, and can make up our own minds.
We all get things wrong from time-to-time .. the important thing is the intention behind
our decisions, rather than the mistakes.

 

[Colt]

What if it was created by God to evolve? Does this mean we are all correct?

The explanation from my religion, the Urantia Book. IMOP

Life Transplantation​

36:3.1 (399.3) Life does not spontaneously appear in the universes; the Life Carriers must initiate it on the barren planets. They are the carriers, disseminators, and guardians of life as it appears on the evolutionary worlds of space. All life of the order and forms known on Urantia arises with these Sons, though not all forms of planetary life are existent on Urantia.

36:3.2 (399.4) The corps of Life Carriers commissioned to plant life upon a new world usually consists of one hundred senior carriers, one hundred assistants, and one thousand custodians. The Life Carriers often carry actual life plasm to a new world, but not always. They sometimes organize the life patterns after arriving on the planet of assignment in accordance with formulas previously approved for a new adventure in life establishment. Such was the origin of the planetary life of Urantia.

36:3.3 (399.5) When, in accordance with approved formulas, the physical patterns have been provided, then do the Life Carriers catalyze this lifeless material, imparting through their persons the vital spirit spark; and forthwith do the inert patterns become living matter.

36:3.4 (399.6) The vital spark—the mystery of life—is bestowed through the Life Carriers, not by them. They do indeed supervise such transactions, they formulate the life plasm itself, but it is the Universe Mother Spirit who supplies the essential factor of the living plasm. From the Creative Daughter of the Infinite Spirit comes that energy spark which enlivens the body and presages the mind.

36:3.5 (399.7) In the bestowal of life the Life Carriers transmit nothing of their personal natures, not even on those spheres where new orders of life are projected. At such times they simply initiate and transmit the spark of life, start the required revolutions of matter in accordance with the physical, chemical, and electrical specifications of the ordained plans and patterns. Life Carriers are living catalytic presences which agitate, organize, and vitalize the otherwise inert elements of the material order of existence.

36:3.6 (400.1) The Life Carriers of a planetary corps are given a certain period in which to establish life on a new world, approximately one-half million years of the time of that planet. At the termination of this period, indicated by certain developmental attainments of the planetary life, they cease implantation efforts, and they may not subsequently add anything new or supplemental to the life of that planet.

36:3.7 (400.2) During the ages intervening between life establishment and the emergence of human creatures of moral status, the Life Carriers are permitted to manipulate the life environment and otherwise favorably directionize the course of biologic evolution. And this they do for long periods of time.

36:3.8 (400.3) When the Life Carriers operating on a new world have once succeeded in producing a being with will, with the power of moral decision and spiritual choice, then and there their work terminates—they are through; they may manipulate the evolving life no further. From this point forward the evolution of living things must proceed in accordance with the endowment of the inherent nature and tendencies which have already been imparted to, and established in, the planetary life formulas and patterns. The Life Carriers are not permitted to experiment or to interfere with will; they are not allowed to dominate or arbitrarily influence moral creatures.

36:3.9 (400.4) Upon the arrival of a Planetary Prince they prepare to leave, though two of the senior carriers and twelve custodians may volunteer, by taking temporary renunciation vows, to remain indefinitely on the planet as advisers in the matter of the further development and conservation of the life plasm. Two such Sons and their twelve associates are now serving on Urantia.

 

[freelight]

What if it was created by God to evolve? Does this mean we are all correct?

----------------o

Apparently it is intrinsic to life and consciousness itself, that it evolves in consequence to its own unfoldment/activity. Life, energy, consciousness, spirit;....it is all involving and evolving itself within the fabric of creation......the movement of life is on-going The concept of 'theistic evolution' or even 'pantheistic evolution' (dress it as you wish) is logical within its own context frames, - only the nuances differ from different perspectives.

Reality includes life as it IS (actuality), and as its evolving (unfolding its potentials and possiblities). This is all there is (which includes no-thing and every-thing). - as long as space and time exists in the context of relativity and the interaction of mind, matter, energy in motion, spirit, ETC.....there is evolution. Its seems pretty self evident.

I AM and I WILL BE





---------------o

 

[metis]

----------------o

Apparently it is intrinsic to life and consciousness itself, that it evolves in consequence to its own unfoldment/activity. Life, energy, consciousness, spirit;....it is all involving and evolving itself within the fabric of creation......the movement of life is on-going The concept of 'theistic evolution' or even 'pantheistic evolution' (dress it as you wish) is logical within its own context frames, - only the nuances differ from different perspectives.

Reality includes life as it IS (actuality), and as its evolving (unfolding its potentials and possiblities). This is all there is (which includes no-thing and every-thing). - as long as space and time exists in the context of relativity and the interaction of mind, matter, energy in motion, spirit, ETC.....there is evolution. Its seems pretty self evident.

I AM and I WILL BE

View attachment 84125



---------------o

Are you familiar with the teachings of Baruch Spinoza by thance?

 

[freelight]

Are you familiar with the teachings of Baruch Spinoza by thance?

Im familiar with Spinoza yes, and have yet to read more of his works, I think I have a kindle book on him not read yet. I'm aware his theology was more monist/pantheist, so interested in diving into how he synthesizes his world view, philosophy and metaphysics

I see 'creation' and 'evolution' as inter-related and 'intrinsic' to one another......the Source of creation both involves ITself with creation and evolves creation, so that in space and time, all there is is CREATION - so my worldview is mostly monistic/non-dualist/pantheistic in that sense, although you could make a distcintion between 'Creator' and 'Creation',......but there is both unity and duality conceptual frames. In any case, all is Spirit and cognized by consciousness, whether beyond space or time, or within any given space or time. 'God' is One, 'God' is All. - all exists in(en) 'God'...from a pan-en-theist perspective...'God' being the Source, container and context of All That IS. I also enjoy researching infinity, so....I can get way out there

I need to start up some of my own threads here, if Im to get back into the swing of things and make this my main discusison forum. Any are free to also PM me






-------------o

 

[metis]

Im familiar with Spinoza yes, and have yet to read more of his works, I think I have a kindle book on him not read yet. I'm aware his theology was more monist/pantheist, so interested in diving into how he synthesizes his world view, philosophy and metaphysics

I see 'creation' and 'evolution' as inter-related and 'intrinsic' to one another......the Source of creation both involves ITself with creation and evolves creation, so that in space and time, all there is is CREATION - so my worldview is mostly monistic/non-dualist/pantheistic in that sense, although you could make a distcintion between 'Creator' and 'Creation',......but there is both unity and duality conceptual frames. In any case, all is Spirit and cognized by consciousness, whether beyond space or time, or within any given space or time. 'God' is One, 'God' is All. - all exists in(en) 'God'...from a pan-en-theist perspective...'God' being the Source, container and context of All That IS. I also enjoy researching infinity, so....I can get way out there

I need to start up some of my own threads here, if Im to get back into the swing of things and make this my main discusison forum. Any are free to also PM me



View attachment 84155


-------------o

Let me highly recommend "A Book Forged In Hell" by Steven Nadler as it is excellent, imo.

BTW, my old Signature Statement, which I still believe in, goes like this: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that."

 

[David1967]

What if it was created by God to evolve? Does this mean we are all correct?

Sure, why not. Anything is possible I suppose. Imo none of us are all correct. I think that we each have some pieces of "correct," but we are still at this point limited in our knowledge of such things.

 

[dwb001]

If we evolved... God created or from a pond... there is no need for Jesus or salvation.

If death did not come through the first Adam then life does not come from the Second Adam.

So evolution by definition is not compatible with Christianity.

 

[Eddi]

What if it was created by God to evolve? Does this mean we are all correct?

I don't see how it would be possible for life to not evolve