Why I believe God Created Life.

[Gehennaite]

Evolution does not disprove God. It actually seems more impressive, to me, if God actually organized reality that way.

Just imagine the amount of genius it took to orchestrate something so precise, vivid, and self-sustaining as the universe. I could see God setting it all up, like a complex domino set, and all It had to do was give it a little "push"...

[youtube]mdT163r3dUQ[/youtube]

 

[starless]

Evolution does not disprove God. It actually seems more impressive, to me, if God actually organized reality that way.

Just imagine the amount of genius it took to orchestrate something so precise, vivid, and self-sustaining as the universe. I could see God setting it all up, like a complex domino set, and all It had to do was give it a little "push"...

[youtube]mdT163r3dUQ[/youtube]

Well yes, it doesn't disprove a deistic God, certainly.
But it definitely disproves a theistic god, like the Christian one for example.

 

[Gehennaite]

Well yes, it doesn't disprove a deistic God, certainly.
But it definitely disproves a theistic god, like the Christian one for example.

I don't think it necessarily disproves a theistic God either, though. Pantheism/Panentheism, for example.

 

[Ouroboros]

The roundness of the Earth is still contested too. I once saw a whole forum of people who debated the subject.

And gravity is contested too. Currently scientists are trying to figure out how it works, and when. Dark matter and dark energy is messing up the equation. And also, now black holes are being questioned too I heard. For real.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Latter is the better option for us feel free to call your ancestors apes by all means. Mines were human.

They weren't apes. They were ancestors to the apes as well. It was a pre-ape-pre-human species.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well yes, it doesn't disprove a deistic God, certainly.
But it definitely disproves a theistic god, like the Christian one for example.

It doesn't have to.

The Bible is not meant to be read as a scientific book. It's a religious book with the purpose of guiding a person through a religious experience. Now, you can get that through contemplation of science and nature and those truths as well, but that's not the focus in the Bible. It's focused about human relationship with God. It's about how we connect with this supposed God, and not how God tinkered in his workshop and used a screwdriver instead of a wrench because Moses happened to write it that way. Salvation is about the change of a person's inner being, not how the physical body was made.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then go and ask your government to call it that - "The Fact of Evolution" they won't - why? BECAUSE ITS STILL A THEORY.... with holes in it, I may add - big, giant, black ones

A scientific theory (the way the term is used in science) does always contain facts.

There are facts in theory of evolution.

The facts are: species evolved in the past, and they are evolving now.

The theory part of the theory, or as I'd like to call it, the model, describes how and why. The modeling part of theory of evolution explains why species evolve and why. Darwin contributed to some of that explanation. Watson and Crick contributed knowledge about DNA (a fact, genetics), but the modeling of how genetics work is still developing because it's a freaking beast of a system.

Gravity is a fact, because we know it's there. We also know that evolution is happening, just as much.

But, the theory of gravity is about how and why gravity is doing what it's doing. That's actually still in progress as well, especially after the discovery of dark matter.

As for your claim that the theory (which you think is a fact), has not been contested for over a generation - is total utter BS mate.

It's hotly contested.

Even here on the forum its hotly contested, and thats the microcosm outside of the macrocosm example.

The debate about macroevolution isn't really about the facts of evolution, but about how to interpret the evidence. The evidence strongly suggests macroevolution and doesn't support Special Creation. The interpretation that fits is that species evolve, not created in Eden 6,000 years ago. So the facts are there. The acceptance of what that evidence says and how to understand them is what's debated.

 

[Scimitar]

so whats different from what I said bud?

I never denied that facts are included within theories, but it doesn't make the theory a fact...

...take the example of a glass of water, I put two drops of olive oil in it - it does not make it olive oil. Get me? Simple analogy, feel free to pick it apart at your leisure - but it sticks.

A theory, is just that - a theory.

Scimitar

 

[viole]

so whats different from what I said bud?

I never denied that facts are included within theories, but it doesn't make the theory a fact...

...take the example of a glass of water, I put two drops of olive oil in it - it does not make it olive oil. Get me? Simple analogy, feel free to pick it apart at your leisure - but it sticks.

A theory, is just that - a theory.

Scimitar

In science a theory is something used to explain brute facts about nature.

So, we have a theory of gravity (fact) and a theory to explain black body radiation (fact). A theory of electricity, magnetism (facts). Etc.

And, last but not least, a theory of evolution (fact).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

A theory, is just that - a theory.

Like Number Theory in Math, also called Arithmetics.

Other than that, I'm glad that you agree, *bud*, that Theory of Evolution contains facts, facts that support the theory.

 

[starless]

I don't understand what the confusion is here. The definition of "scientific theory" is pretty straightforward and any pupil 4th grade or above should know it:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

 

[work in progress]

Sorry work in progress, but Science is still a young pup.

You are the one claiming neo darwinist theories as absolute truth.

Takes faith doesnt it?

"Neodarwinist" or as it is correctly termed: Modern Synthesis, is the best available theory that explains the FACTS discovered in fossil and genetic research:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
​

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


Now, what takes blind faith is maintaining beliefs that life on Earth is the product of individual creations! Any form of creationism...regardless of whether it is young earth, old earth, or just arbitrarily separates out humans from related primates and other life forms, are notions or beliefs based on ancient legends written by men who had no way to develop real knowledge of how these processes actually worked.



Creation accounts are easy to concoct...any five year old will conflate their own theories about why the Sun shines, why there are rocks etc.. But, any religion or other belief system that continues on forcing people to accept myth as fact, is at war with science, and the process of developing real understanding of physical processes.

 

[work in progress]

I don't understand what the confusion is here. The definition of "scientific theory" is pretty straightforward and any pupil 4th grade or above should know it:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

That's true, but we will keep hearing:"evolution is only a theory" at least in the English-speaking world till the end of time; because of the way the term "theory" is used colloquially in English in place of "hypothesis," which is never used outside of science discussion and debate.

 

[work in progress]

I don't think it necessarily disproves a theistic God either, though. Pantheism/Panentheism, for example.

Yes, the war between science and religion is a product of religions feeling threatened by contrary evidence. I have read...in more than a few sources on comparative religion (including Karen Armstrong) that fundamentalism and literalism really kick off after Gutenberg, and more and more people start reading and looking for truth and legitimacy in the pages of books.

When a religion goes from being a way of life based on faith, prayer and religious ritual, to one that is based on memorizing verses in their books, then many of them end up having to prove that their book is the right one, and all of the other religious books and contrary science texts, have to be attacked, figuratively, and sometimes literally!

 

[Scimitar]

Work in Progress, Your post was one I enjoyed reading.

Creation accounts are easy to concoct...any five year old will conflate their own theories about why the Sun shines, why there are rocks etc.. But, any religion or other belief system that continues on forcing people to accept myth as fact, is at war with science, and the process of developing real understanding of physical processes.

Yet, in the Quran we find this ayah (verse/sign) for those who think like you and I:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. - 2:256

No compulsion in religion - further - in chapter Al kaafiroon (The unbelievers) we find a very short and direct surah (chapter) :

Surah no 109 - Al Kfafiroon

1) Say, "O disbelievers,
2) I do not worship what you worship.
3) Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
4) Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
5) Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
6) For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

SO the idea that religion is something to be forced on any people, is not a teaching in Islam - and definitely not to be found in the Quran.

People who come to faith, in particular Islam in the modern age - are coming to it in droves, in fact the CIA published a document which is easily sourced on the net claiming that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,, with most of its converts coming from the west - in particular - the USA, where women outnumber men converts to Islam by a ration of 4/1.... all this, despite the media's assault on Islam and Muslims for the past decades...

...kinda makes you wonder - a religion which has no real central governing body (such as the Catholic Church) nor a Khaliph (spiritual leader like the Pope) - is managing to win over fresh new converts from the female of the species in the USA of all places.... if that doesnt make anyone wonder, then I am at a loss as to where to go from here - to tell the truth, i feel God's hand is in this.... HE is guiding good souls to truth. This is my opinion. And I rest in upon my experiences and critical nature (yes I am skeptical by nature, but I came to belief also - Allah had a plan for me it seems)

As for the female converts from USA - seems they were well aware of the media touting Islam to be a sexist and backward religion - yet these women went and did their research, and found that women have more rights over their men in Islam than men have rights over their women... firhter, all the tidbits and media ploys against Islam were exposed on forums and internet blogs by mostly English speaking female converts to Islam.... infact, youtube (quite literally) thousands of USA female convert videos - thousands - and those were the ones which felt comfortable being in front of a camera.... many are shy and will not stand in front of one.

Scimitar

 

[rusra02]

Not really. All life on Earth, including viruses and bacteria had already existed since Day 5, according to your book, right?
Then how did HIV come about? The virus can only affect human organisms and humans were designed on the next day? Was Adam created HIV positive?

And to what end had God designed HIV, Ebola and the parasitic worms in the first place? He must have programmed the worms to burrow through children's eyes before the Fall and before humans were even created.

Often, people carry viruses considered harmful to humans without any bad effects on them. What harms one person or even kills them may leave another unaffected. The point is that it is not the organisms themselves but our imperfect dying bodies that allow viruses and other organisms to wreak harm upon us. And the Bible shows man's rebellion affected the animals, and even the earth itself detrimentally, in addition to the harm to man. (Genesis 1:30, 3:17,18)

 

[metis]

I really don't think the Bible is that reliable a medical journal-- it's a book of faith.

 

[rusra02]

I really don't think the Bible is that reliable a medical journal-- it's a book of faith.

Ah, to the contrary, if you are familiar with the Torah, you should know the medical and sanitary concepts in the Law were far, far ahead of their times, and even our times in many countries.

 

[rusra02]

"Neodarwinist" or as it is correctly termed: Modern Synthesis, is the best available theory that explains the FACTS discovered in fossil and genetic research:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
​

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


Now, what takes blind faith is maintaining beliefs that life on Earth is the product of individual creations! Any form of creationism...regardless of whether it is young earth, old earth, or just arbitrarily separates out humans from related primates and other life forms, are notions or beliefs based on ancient legends written by men who had no way to develop real knowledge of how these processes actually worked.



Creation accounts are easy to concoct...any five year old will conflate their own theories about why the Sun shines, why there are rocks etc.. But, any religion or other belief system that continues on forcing people to accept myth as fact, is at war with science, and the process of developing real understanding of physical processes.

I think this post is a good example of the bluster used by evolutionists to try to bolster their failing theory. Here is a quote from "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking": "What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

I do not think it necessary to highlight portions of this quote. If someone reads it carefully, they will see that research has confirmed what evolution denies. I believe evolutionists try to make the facts fit their theory instead of changing (or discarding) their theory to fit the facts.

 

[metis]

Ah, to the contrary, if you are familiar with the Torah, you should know the medical and sanitary concepts in the Law were far, far ahead of their times, and even our times in many countries.

You've taken what I said too far, although maybe my wording is more to blame. Yes, there are some teachings found in Torah in health that make sense. After all, the authors weren't idiots.

But what I am saying is not to get carried away with attempting to portray Torah or the Bible as being medical books because they ain't-- that's clearly not their purpose.