Who Created Evolution?

[McBell]

Apparently the one about cursing too.

wait...
You think 'the Bible defines cursing as using a randomly selected arbitrary list of words?

 

[columbus]

The fact that you don't think the first life form has everything to do with macroevolution tells me you're just not very bright or you're so prideful that you know you're wrong and won't admit it.

No, not really.
The origins of life itself and the processes resulting in speciation are just two different things.
It's like knowing about the history of the evolution of automobiles, from "horseless carriage" to Bugatti Veyron, doesn't require knowing about the history of burning fossil fuel. When people first started using petroleum as fuel is related to the automobile, but different.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

No, not really.
The origins of life itself and the processes resulting in speciation are just two different things.
It's like knowing about the history of the evolution of automobiles, from "horseless carriage" to Bugatti Veyron, doesn't require knowing about the history of burning fossil fuel. When people first started using petroleum as fuel is related to the automobile, but different.
Tom

Well, how are you going to know how the most basic life forms came about if you don't know what the first organism was?

 

[columbus]

Well, how are you going to know how the most basic life forms came about if you don't know what the first organism was?

Those two questions are very closely related. But not to what happened a couple of billion years later, evolution. Life is estimated to have begun around 3.5B years ago, but evolution didn't actually start for another couple of billion years. Early life forms were too simple to evolve genetically.
There are real biologists on RF who could explain this far better than I.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

Those two questions are very closely related. But not to what many scientists think might have happened couple of billion years later, according to what many scientists think, evolution. Life is estimated by many scientists to have begun around 3.5B years ago, according to what many scientists think, but many scientists think evolution didn't actually start for another couple of billion years. According to what many scientists think, theroretical early life forms were too simple to evolve genetically.

There are real biologists on RF who could explain what many scientists think about this far better than I.
Tom

I hope you don't mind the few corrections I made to your post.

 

[columbus]

I hope you don't mind the few corrections I made to your post.

I hope that you will not object when I start correcting yours. Like replacing "God" with "ignorant bronze age goatherds and the warlords who ruled them"
Tom

 

[oldbadger]

A man inspired by an alien from heaven.speaking to him telepathically.via the Holy Spirit. Where did your idea of space monkeys originate?

Erik von Daniken. Chariots of the Gods.

You still have not told me who wrote Colossians which you quoted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, how are you going to know how the most basic life forms came about if you don't know what the first organism was?

How can chemists know how water molecules form if they don't know where the first hydrogen and oxygen atoms came from?

 

[QuestioningMind]

The fact that you don't think the first life form has everything to do with macroevolution tells me you're just not very bright or you're so prideful that you know you're wrong and won't admit it.

What did everything evolve from? Can't you trace macroevolution back to the first life form? If not, why not?

"What did everything evolve from?" We do not know at this point.

"Can't you trace macroevolution back to the first life form? If not, why not?" No, because thus far we haven't collected enough information to make such a determination.

The fact that science has yet to answer your questions does not in any way shape or form change the fact that the TOE and the origins of life are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT areas of scientific study. Why is that so very difficult for you to understand?

 

[DavidFirth]

"What did everything evolve from?" We do not know at this point.

"Can't you trace macroevolution back to the first life form? If not, why not?" No, because thus far we haven't collected enough information to make such a determination.

The fact that science has yet to answer your questions does not in any way shape or form change the fact that the TOE and the origins of life are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT areas of scientific study. Why is that so very difficult for you to understand?

I understand what you're saying. The TOE is 100% dependent on the first life form whether God created it or not. So I don't understand why atheists don't think it's important. Without abiogenesis you have zero life and zero evolution.

Supposedly, all of the life on this planet evolved from the first life form. If I were an atheist I'd be very worried that no version of abiogenesis is viable.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, I don't believe it does mean God evolves. God created all of creation and put it under Christ, except for God himself is above it all. If evolution is part of creation then God is not subject to evolution.

I used both definitions shown below.
ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "his interest in evolution"
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
   synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More

God is not subject to evolution -as in definition 1 -but creativity itself is an example of definition 2.

If God did not create himself, then God was either eternally a complex creator, or developed/increasingly self-created. He would not be personally responsible for his own existence in either case -but would be increasingly personally responsible as his person and creativity became more complex.

If eternally a complex creator, then that which he has created has become more complex.

 

[Father Heathen]

I understand what you're saying. The TOE is 100% dependent on the first life form whether God created it or not. So I don't understand why atheists don't think it's important. Without abiogenesis you have zero life and zero evolution.

Supposedly, all of the life on this planet evolved from the first life form. If I were an atheist I'd be very worried that no version of abiogenesis is viable.

So by your goofy-*** logic, if you see someone jogging down the road but don't know where they started from, then they're not actually jogging?

 

[Etritonakin]

Hi,

I understand what you are saying however I will always say that I find it amazing that 20-30 years ago and still today creationists have denied evolution to the point of violence. Now evolution is fact and that Darwinian theories have been proven now the religious accept it but twist it as to be a thing created by god?

This kind of acceptance by believers is amazing but it shows a vital point, Religion is trying to hold on to its believers so hard that it is willing to throw away its old beliefs and replace them with proven scientific fact but until science can prove everything religion will cling on to the basics who, what or how, created us and the universe .

Science changes based on new data and understanding religion changes because of older beliefs have been proven wrong.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in a church a 100 years from now and see how twisted it will be compared to what religion is today !

Young earth creationists and similar try to make things fit their errant interpretation of scripture, but the bible itself is quite different.

It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made -and that we ought to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true -so being open to understanding is not against scripture.

The idea that the universe must have been created is not ridiculous -and an intelligence capable of packaging and executing the singularity and Big Bang is -at least in my opinion -a much more logical and simple explanation than the multiverse idea.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, not Darwin. God created evolution. Darwin may have noticed some things like cross breeding and adaptation, called it evolution, and after a few puffs of the wacky weed, decided people came from monkeys. But for whatever part of evolution is true, God created at the time of creation. God created both the visible and invisible. The systems of the life cycle are a part of the creation; adaptation, survival of the fittest, luck, winning. The things people call evolution.

Collosians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Okay, got it.

So, next question ---- who created ignorance? Or did that just evolve on its own?

 

[DavidFirth]

So by your goofy-*** logic, if you see someone jogging down the road but don't know where they started from, then they're not actually jogging?

Not the same, poor comparison, bro. I hope you don't really draw conclusions like that.

You can't see macroevolution (running down the road), you only think it happens because you see microevolution. A good comparison would be that you see a guy hit a home run with an aluminum bat so you assume he has hit home runs with other kinds of bats. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Or you see microevolution running down the road and assume that surely macroevolution runs down the road, too, only at a much slower pace. Well, maybe it does but maybe it doesn't.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not the same, poor comparison, bro. I hope you don't really draw conclusions like that.

You can't see macroevolution (running down the road), you only think it happens because you see microevolution. A good comparison would be that you see a guy hit a home run with an aluminum bat so you assume he has hit home runs with other kinds of bats. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Or you see microevolution running down the road and assume that surely macroevolution runs down the road, too, only at a much slower pace. Well, maybe it does but maybe it doesn't.

The jogger represents evidence, of which evolution has an insurmountable mountain of. Your posts are evidence of your existence, even if I don't know when and where you were born.

 

[DavidFirth]

The jogger represents evidence, of which evolution has an insurmountable mountain of. Your posts are evidence of your existence, even if I don't know when and where you were born.

I get that. But the evidence can be interpreted in a completely different way, too. And the evidence isn't definitely conclusive either way.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Everyone believes in some form of 'evolution' like microevolution of an animal to a specific environment but the grand from goo to the zoo to you is another story. But that story has too many holes in it. Where did the information come from and since information runs down and biological systems are no exceptions, that would be a problem

 

[Father Heathen]

I get that. But the evidence can be interpreted in a completely different way, too. And the evidence isn't definitely conclusive either way.

The overwhelming consensus among the international scientific community is that, yes, it is conclusive. The only reason someone would "interpret it differently" is because they can't accept the possibility that some random goat herders from ancient times might've been wrong about a few things. Tell me, why would any sane, sensible person believe and trust ancient goat herders over modern scientists?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi,

your quote:-

Are you perfect? "If you're reading this, you're not too close." Jesus Christ, died for our sin, our shame. He rose so that when we trust Him we receive eternal life.

is ridiculous here is a quote from Richard Dawkins on your belief in your quote:-

“It’s a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge and power, couldn’t think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.”

WHY is it a horrible idea? WHAT is a better way to forgive our sin? WHY was it wrong for God to visit Earth to communicate? HOW is it proven that God should not have His Son as His representative? HOW can sin be forgiven otherwise if it is so bad, there is a horrible torture and execution for its expiation?

Mr. Dawkins is making rhetorical statements that are philosophical in nature, while lacking any explanatory or narrative power. They can be summed as "I have ways that I like better than God's ways."