Why would God create Evolution?

[outhouse]

During the creation account, I think God made every "kind" of animal. .

.

At this point in time anything to do with creation is mythology.

There is nothing that can be attributed to biblical creation in any way shape or form.

The only question is; how many "original" kinds were there of every animal? No one knows

We all know. The answer is none were created.

All animals factually evolved.

Evolution is fact, and it doesnt care if you dont like it.

 

[Desert Snake]

You either accept evidence

What 'evidence'...

or accept ancient myths.

Really? We only get two choices there?

You either decide using reason

So if I read a book on evolution I'm using 'reason'? Is there a quiz afterwards?

and evidence or turn off your mind and declare it all magic.

Really? Magic? It's either evolution or 'magic'? Can it be both? What about Hinduism that includes evolution...is that kosher? Is the 'magic' logical if we add it to evolution? Can you be Christian and an evolutionist? Does that negate the 'magic'?

There are either understandable mechanisms that explain how things happen, or there is magic. Which is more reasonable?

'Magic' or 'evolution'.
O.k....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

At this point in time anything to do with creation is mythology.

Voodoo science (macroevolution) is mythology too.

Evolution is fact, and it doesnt care if you dont like it.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes. Anything beyond this is voodoo topped off with bio-babble.

 

[orcel]

As a Christian who does not refute evolution, (the two concepts are not mutually exclusive) I'll chime in a bit. The question asking if God created and evolution exists, then why would God wait 13+ billion years to make humans is logically flawed. As you assume human limitations and understanding and apply that to God. We humans perceive time. I suggest that God being the creator of the universe (or multiverse) exists external from and beyond the temporal waiting you mention.

From the extra-temporal, divine perspective past, present,future all coexist. There is no waiting. From this state God created everything at once. Everything and every-when was created at once.


Here's what I suggest...

Day 7: Genesis states that God is resting, IE the creative process is complete; Adam however is exploring his new surrounding. That night he looks up, does he see stars? If he does (and I think he does) then we have some figuring to do... The closest star to the Earth (after the sun) is 4.2 light-years away. That means light emanating from that star takes over 4 years to reach Earth. Adam shouldn't see any stars for 4+ years and then he'd only see one.

Perhaps however God created the stars with the light they emit already in route to Earth. Then stars would be visible that first night. Now when we look at stars we see what that star looked like in the past, way back when that light was created within the star, so if God created a star (or all the stars) with their light already in route to Earth then God created those stars with a kind of "built-in" history, a history that predates the seven days of existence.

Suddenly we find a Earth only days old but stars much older. That seems weird so lets look at the Earth too. What did Adam eat his first day? If the Earth is but 7 days old, and we know that food takes longer then seven days to ripen. Did god create a fig tree seed and plant it and leave Adam to wait the years it'd take before it would been fruit baring? I think not. perhaps God created a mature fruit tree, teeming with food ready to eat. But if Adam cut down that tree, would he not find rings within the trunk. The rings detail the trees history, a history that would predate the seven days since creation.

I suggest that humanity would require a mature, healthy planet to survive. Therefore if God exists and God created then God must have created a mature Earth,within a mature universe. A mature universe that includes a "built-in" history. A built-in history that could easily include evolution.

Now this "built-in" history is a temporal term trying to explain an non-temporal concept. This "built-in" history is no less real, its not hidden, fake dinosaur bones put in the ground to confuse mankind. That history is a real as today, or tomorrow.

 

[Bunyip]

Voodoo science (macroevolution) is mythology too.



Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes. Anything beyond this is voodoo topped off with bio-babble.

Sure, dogs produce dogs. If a species of dog evolves into two species of dog - that is macro-evolution.

You only believe that macro is voodoo, because you refuse to accept that macro-evolution is when a cat species becomes two cat species (there are now about 42 cat species - that is 42 instances at least of macro-evolution) and not when a dog turns into a banana.

A species of dog becoming two species of dog is macro evolution.

A species of dog turning into bananas is magic.

Speciation (macro evolution) is an observable fact.

Now if all modern life emerged from the 'kinds' taken aboard the Ark - so all 42 species of cat for example emerging from the original 'kind' over a few thousand years - THAT is macro evolution occuring at a far faster rate than biologists have ever believed possible with evolution.

So the 'voodoo' here is your perspective, not that of science.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sure, dogs produce dogs. If a species of dog evolves into two species of dog - that is macro-evolution.

But the end result is a dog, correct? You are not producing something different than what you started with. You may produce a different KIND of what you started with...but it is still the same kind.

You only believe that macro is voodoo, because you refuse to accept that macro-evolution is when a cat species becomes two cat species (there are now about 42 cat species - that is 42 instances at least of macro-evolution) and not when a dog turns into a banana.

My point is simple. I have no reason to believe that before I graced the world with my presence on earth..that animals were doing things then that they haven't been observed to do now.

A species of dog becoming two species of dog is macro evolution.

A species of dog turning into bananas is magic.

Speciation (macro evolution) is an observable fact.

Tell ya what...turn a species of dog into a species of cat, and then call it macroevolution.

Now if all modern life emerged from the 'kinds' taken aboard the Ark - so all 42 species of cat for example emerging from the original 'kind' over a few thousand years - THAT is macro evolution occuring at a far faster rate than biologists have ever believed possible with evolution.

Macro evolution occuring at a faster rate? We haven't seen macroevolution occur at any rate. All we've seen is animals producing their own kind. No one has seen it, and to believe it you are taking a huge leap of faith.

So the 'voodoo' here is your perspective, not that of science.

Well the bible said that the animals "brought forth after their kind". That is what I see. Have you seen anything different?

 

[Bunyip]

But the end result is a dog, correct? You are not producing something different than what you started with. You may produce a different KIND of what you started with...but it is still the same kind.

One species of dog evolving into two species of dogs is macro evolution.

That an organisms offspring are allways the same 'kind' is what evolution demonstrates buddy - as I said, your silly idea of an organism producig a different sort of organism is magic, not evolution.

I note your dishonesty by the way, a single species of fly becoming two species of fly is macro evolution. A dog does not need to becpme anything other than a dog to demonstrate macro evolution.

My point is simple. I have no reason to believe that before I graced the world with my presence on earth..that animals were doing things then that they haven't been observed to do now.

Sure, and of course we have observed macro evolution many, many times.

Macro evolution being when a species of dog becomes 2 species of dog, as opposed to your dishonest strawman of macro evolution which is apparently drawn fro the Harry Potter moviez

Tell ya what...turn a species of dog into a species of cat, and then call it macroevolution.

Why would I call that macro evolution? That would be completely impossible, it would disprove evolution and not prove it.

Macro evolution occuring at a faster rate? We haven't seen macroevolution occur at any rate. All we've seen is animals producing their own kind. No one has seen it, and to believe it you are taking a huge leap of faith.

Of course we have seen macro evolution, just not the magic Harry Potter what-my-mum-taught-me-at-homeschool imaginary version of macro evolution where you pretend it is something that is competely at odds with the theory of evolution - like a cat turning into a dog.

Actual macro evolution is an observable fact.

Your made up imaginary version, where dogs turn into cats is just something creationists made up.

Well the bible said that the animals "brought forth after their kind". That is what I see. Have you seen anything different?

Evolution argues that animals give birth after their own kind also mate, you are confusing evolution for Harry Potter.

 

[metis]

Second, you are right...sequential change, and the only sequential change you've ever seen is animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

False, as we have seen speciation take place.

Then you have problems. If time is infinite, then there is no way to explain why an infinite chain reached a finite point on the chain only in only a finite time ago. So if time is infinite, why did our universe begin to exist only 13.8 billion years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later? Second, if our universe did come from a pre-big bang scenario, then it is unlikely to be a life permitting universe, because the entropy was just to low it to begin from a mindless and blind process.

The above is a nonsensical paragraph.

I can give a long list of reasons why a supernatural cause is the best explanation.

Anyone can produce a list, but that simply doesn't mean that the list would be correct. Secondly, if your list were to be so logical, why are the vast majority of cosmologists either atheists or agnostics (by far, more the latter)? Thirdly, I never said that our universe goes back into infinity. And fourthly, this is getting away from what the thread is about.

The Cambrian layers doesn't support evolution, because if it did you would expect to see countless transitional fossils throughout the layer...but you don't.

Another falsehood.

If by "fossil record" you mean "any various set of fossils belonging to animals that establishes macro-level changes from one species of animals to another", then there is no fossil record. When you find a fossil and determine anything other than "this once living creature has now died", then you've just left empirical science and dived right in to the religious realm.

Another falsehood.

My belief is God doesn't need a trial and error process to create anything.

Who said God did allow everything to be trial and error? I didn't.

Actually reading a good book that actually explains evolution would be helpful in eliminating so many of your erroneous beliefs about the ToE, so let me recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. However, I doubt very much that you would ever read such a book since sitting back thinking that you know "the answers" is so much easier-- no studying needed.

[continued]

 

[metis]

[continued from my last post]

OK, let me ask you a question: since you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and, I would assume, all of the Bible, do you observe the entire Law? You can find it here: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Why this relates is what Thomas Aquinas noted, namely that a literal interpretation of Torah would be a major problem for a Christian, although I'll not explain why he wrote this at this point. Therefore, do you believe all of Torah is divinely inspired and inerrant and that it should be interpreted literally, or do you pick-and-choose when you want to believe in a literalistic approach?

 

[LuisDantas]

Voodoo science (macroevolution) is mythology too.

It is certainly mythology that there is such a thing as "macroevolution" that is somehow separated from the speciation that is known to happen.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes. Anything beyond this is voodoo topped off with bio-babble.

Facts be darned?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

False, as we have seen speciation take place.

Have we ever seen a dog produce a non-dog?

The above is a nonsensical paragraph.

This is "nonsense of the gaps". Kinda like "god of the gaps"....."I don't understand what was said, therefore it is nonsense".

Anyone can produce a list, but that simply doesn't mean that the list would be correct.

And the same thing will apply to any unbeliever who can give a long list of reasons why he/she thinks theism is false.

Secondly, if your list were to be so logical, why are the vast majority of cosmologists either atheists or agnostics (by far, more the latter)?

I have two reasons for this...the first is; I think most cosmologists (non-theists) don't believe in God is because deep down inside they feel if God were to exist, it would take the "fun" out of science. Kinda reminds me of when I was young and used to watch wrestling (WWF). I used to think that everything was real. Then as I got older, I found out that it was fake...and it took the fun out of watching it. I think the same thing is happening IF I am to believe that the majority of cosmologists are unbelievers.

The second reason is for the same reason every other unbeliever doesn't believe...because people don't like the idea of someone telling the what to do...the thought of being accountable for your actions to a higher power is troubling to some people. They don't want to be told that lusting after someone's wife is wrong...or a man intimately involved with another man is wrong...or pornography is wrong...ultimately, I think lust is the MAIN reason keeping people from the kingdom...and even Christians fall victim to this, myself included.

Also, me personally, it is my honest to God opinion that every single intelligent human being knows deep down inside that God exist. Everyone knows it. Everyone can feel it. What they do is they go against their intuition. They fight it. They deny it. They pretend there isn't any evidence and have a continual life of justifying why they don't believe. But they know deep down inside that God exists. Everyone does.

That is just my opinion.

Thirdly, I never said that our universe goes back into infinity. And fourthly, this is getting away from what the thread is about.

That is the problem. If there isn't a timeless cause, then the default position is that nature is all that exist, and it existed eternally in time with the stretching infinitely out. There is no way out of it. That is the implication, the default position if you negate the existence of God. No way out...and the position is quite logically absurd, and if that is the price of atheism, by all means, have at it.

Another falsehood.

Actually, it is true, and it is the single most damaging thing that has stopped Darwinism in its tracks.

Another falsehood.

Again, true.

Who said God did allow everything to be trial and error? I didn't.

That is what evolution is, trial, and error.

Actually reading a good book that actually explains evolution would be helpful in eliminating so many of your erroneous beliefs about the ToE, so let me recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. However, I doubt very much that you would ever read such a book since sitting back thinking that you know "the answers" is so much easier-- no studying needed.

Lol Dawkins? What a joke. Tell him to stop hiding under the table and debate the likes of WLC.

 

[Bunyip]

Have we ever seen a dog produce a non-dog?

That would be magic, not evolution. Neither evolution nor macro evolution demand that a dog produce a non dog.

In fact if a dog ever did prodice a non dog, that would wpuld be evidence against evolution, not for it.

This is "nonsense of the gaps". Kinda like "god of the gaps"....."I don't understand what was said, therefore it is nonsense".



And the same thing will apply to any unbeliever who can give a long list of reasons why he/she thinks theism is false.



I have two reasons for this...the first is; I think most cosmologists (non-theists) don't believe in God is because deep down inside they feel if God were to exist, it would take the "fun" out of science. Kinda reminds me of when I was young and used to watch wrestling (WWF). I used to think that everything was real. Then as I got older, I found out that it was fake...and it took the fun out of watching it. I think the same thing is happening IF I am to believe that the majority of cosmologists are unbelievers.

The second reason is for the same reason every other unbeliever doesn't believe...because people don't like the idea of someone telling the what to do...the thought of being accountable for your actions to a higher power is troubling to some people. They don't want to be told that lusting after someone's wife is wrong...or a man intimately involved with another man is wrong...or pornography is wrong...ultimately, I think lust is the MAIN reason keeping people from the kingdom...and even Christians fall victim to this, myself included.

Also, me personally, it is my honest to God opinion that every single intelligent human being knows deep down inside that God exist. Everyone knows it. Everyone can feel it. What they do is they go against their intuition. They fight it. They deny it. They pretend there isn't any evidence and have a continual life of justifying why they don't believe. But they know deep down inside that God exists. Everyone does.

That is just my opinion.



That is the problem. If there isn't a timeless cause, then the default position is that nature is all that exist, and it existed eternally in time with the stretching infinitely out. There is no way out of it. That is the implication, the default position if you negate the existence of God. No way out...and the position is quite logically absurd, and if that is the price of atheism, by all means, have at it.



Actually, it is true, and it is the single most damaging thing that has stopped Darwinism in its tracks.



Again, true.



That is what evolution is, trial, and error.



Lol Dawkins? What a joke. Tell him to stop hiding under the table and debate the likes of WLC.

Why? WLC accepts evolution to be a fact, and YEC to be false.

Getting WLC to debate a creationist would be more interesting.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

One species of dog evolving into two species of dogs is macro evolution.

But a dog is not producing a non-dog. You are describing microevolution. There is no denying this...there are many types of dogs...you can call them different species...different breeds, whatever...but they are still dogs. A non-dog is not being produced.

That an organisms offspring are allways the same 'kind' is what evolution demonstrates buddy - as I said, your silly idea of an organism producig a different sort of organism is magic, not evolution.

Show me an observation of an animal producing a different kind of animal.

I note your dishonesty by the way, a single species of fly becoming two species of fly is macro evolution. A dog does not need to becpme anything other than a dog to demonstrate macro evolution.

That is how I can tell the whole thing is flawed...on your definition of "macro evolution", if the "dog" kind came from a "non-dog" kind...then what do you call this, if the term "macro evolution" is defined as you put it. What you are describing is micro evolution. For example, the modern day elephant, if you go back 500 million years when there was NO elephant, you can only explain the origins of the modern day elephant by postulating a macro evolutionary change from a non-elephant to a present day elephant. There is no escaping this. You can postulate all you want, but there is no evidence that this has ever occurred, yet evolutionists pass it off as a brute fact, when it is far from it.

Macro evolution being when a species of dog becomes 2 species of dog, as opposed to your dishonest strawman of macro evolution which is apparently drawn fro the Harry Potter moviez

Inanimate material suddenly "coming to life"...now THAT is Harry Potter stuff.

 

[Bunyip]

But a dog is not producing a non-dog. You are describing microevolution. There is no denying this...there are many types of dogs...you can call them different species...different breeds, whatever...but they are still dogs. A non-dog is not being produced.

No. Please read more carefully; Macro evolution is when one species of dog becomes two species of dog. When a dog produces a non dog, that is Harry Potter, not evolution.

A dog producing a non-dog would be evidence against evolution, not for it.

Show me an observation of an animal producing a different kind of animal.

Why would I need to do that? That would prove evolution false and be evidence of magic.

Inanimate material suddenly "coming to life"...now THAT is Harry Potter stuff.

Oh, ok. So how long did it take Adam to come to life from inanimate materials? Not suddenly according to you, so how long did it take? And why change the subject?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why? WLC accepts evolution to be a fact, and YEC to be false.

If I heard WLC correctly, he stated that he doesn't believe in evolution...but either way, if he does, he believes that an Intelligent Designer orchestrated the ordeal, and I don't agree with that but that is an internal disagreement between theists, a point at which we would just have to agree/disagree on. My main concern are those that have this idea that life came from nonlife naturally and evolution is the "origin of species"......naturalism.

 

[Bunyip]

If I heard WLC correctly, he stated that he doesn't believe in evolution...but either way, if he does, he believes that an Intelligent Designer orchestrated the ordeal, and I don't agree with that but that is an internal disagreement between theists, a point at which we would just have to agree/disagree on. My main concern are those that have this idea that life came from nonlife naturally and evolution is the "origin of species"......naturalism.

Clearly you did not hear him correctly. WLC accepts evolution to be a fact and dismisses creationism.

Life arising from non life is abiogenesis, not evolution by the way.

You seem to be denying abiogenesis, but confusing it for evolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No. Please read more carefully; Macro evolution is when one species of dog becomes two species of dog. When a dog produces a non dog, that is Harry Potter, not evolution.

So back to my question regarding elephants...if the present day elephant came from a non-elephant of the past, then that IS like a dog producing a non-dog, no matter how long you want to "slow down" the process...it is still an animal producing a different KIND of animal...you are explaining how we get different varieties within the kind...my question is how did we come to have the kind, PERIOD. Two entirely different questions.

Oh, ok. So how long did it take Adam to come to life from inanimate materials? Not suddenly according to you, so how long did it take? And why change the subject?

Read the Genesis 1 account and form your own opinion on how long it took.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Clearly you did not hear him correctly. WLC accepts evolution to be a fact and dismisses creationism.

Life arising from non life is abiogenesis, not evolution by the way.

You seem to be denying abiogenesis, but confusing it for evolution.

Just who the HELL are you talking about? I am talking about William Lane Craig, the world's LEADING Christian Apologist.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So back to my question regarding elephants...if the present day elephant came from a non-elephant of the past, then that IS like a dog producing a non-dog, no matter how long you want to "slow down" the process...

We could just as easily give the two varients of dogs their own species name, such as canis x and canis y.

Before the speciation event, there was no canis x or canis y.

So we can easily say it's an animal going from non-canis x to canis x.

Elephants came from basal proboscidea. Elephants are still a variation of probscidea, just like mammoths were as well as deinotherium and many more.

You're so stuck on the notion that if we say an animal evolves a new varient, that we're also saying it STOPS being a member of the grander group. That's not what evolution predicts.

Elephants are just a variant of a grander group called proboscidea.

it is still an animal producing a different KIND of animal...you are explaining how we get different varieties within the kind...my question is how did we come to have the kind, PERIOD.

You get "kinds" or varients via mutations and selection.

 

[Bunyip]

So back to my question regarding elephants...if the present day elephant came from a non-elephant of the past, then that IS like a dog producing a non-dog, no matter how long you want to "slow down" the process...it is still an animal producing a different KIND of animal...you are explaining how we get different varieties within the kind...my question is how did we come to have the kind, PERIOD. Two entirely different questions.

No offence, but you are failing to grasp the most basic principles of evolution. According to evolution the ancestors of modern elephants would have given birth to offspring of the same species as themselves. At no point does evolution argue that one 'kind'of animal give birth to another,

The basic principle of evolution is that a species gives birth to offspring of the same species, and that small changes generation by generation add up to much larger changes.

So one species giving birth to another is something that evolution would see as impossible.

Read the Genesis 1 account and form your own opinion on how long it took.

Well very suddenly - and yet you seem to believe in such Harry Potter stuff.