Why would God create Evolution?

[seeking4truth]

The universe reflects the nature of God. Each part reflects something about its creator. Humans and all other parts each reflect/display some characteristics that other parts do not.

As one of the characteristics of God is that of creator the Universe is reflection of that.
A finished, unchanging universe would not have reflected many of God's qualities.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution contradicts Christian theism, and it is not supported by science/observation.

I'm calling

here.

that is not what a 'kind' means.

a poodle is a dog, a dalmation is a dog, both are dogs hence they are the same kind. And they can be cross bred like any other domestic dog.

Are you equating kind with species then?

 

[metis]

Evolution contradicts Christian theism, and it is not supported by science/observation.

False on both counts. Most Christian theologians accept the ToE as long as it is understood that all was ultimately caused by God. And there's a massive amount of data that clearly shows that evolution has indeed occurred.

 

[Ouroboros]

Except that poodles can breed with dalmations.

But poodles don't give birth to dalmatians, and dalmatians don't give birth to poodles. Besides, maybe that was a bad example. Right now, I'm too lazy to look it up, but there are some dog "kinds" that can't reproduce with each other, which then would fulfill your requirement. I'm trying to challenge and show that "kind" is a totally useless word to use for creating categories.

There are two kinds of life: cellular and non-cellular.

There are two kinds of cells: eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

There are four kinds of eukarya: protista, fungi, plantae, animalia. (except for the exceptions that overlap between them)

And so on... all categories based on physical differences, not how they can interchange genes. And many exceptions that cross-over between the "kinds".


I have two kinds of pants: trashy and clean.

I have three kinds of pants: short, long jeans, long slacks.

I have four kinds of pants: blue, brown, black, and beige.

I have five kinds of pants: ...

In essence, "kind" used in any category of items that we're trying to separate, only means loosely "this or that category based on our subjective differentiation."

So by the same token, dalmatians and poodles are different kinds. Different kinds of dogs, and different kinds of animals.

Dogs and cats are the same kind of animals: four legged, sharp teeth, ... Using properties that they share, we can group them together and have "kind" of animal. The Bible doesn't explain which system of "kind" it's referring to.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is like saying Blacks give birth only to Blacks. Filipinos only to Filipinos. Whaaaaaa ? ? ?

That's why the Creationists claim that "kind" of animals is so wrong. The Bible does separate different "kinds" of humans.

Dogs only give birth to dogs and cats only cats. Except their early ancestor that had both dog and cat features and was a "cat-dog" that gave birth to line that would become cats and a line that would become dogs, just like the dalmatians in the past (from other kind of dog) gave birth (and selected for) to dalmatians. A dalmatian and a poodle can't produce their opposite kind.

And, just what is this "Biblical definition" you mention?

The kind of definition that the anti-evolutionists have been using for years, claiming it's the "Biblical" way of understanding it.

 

[Ouroboros]

that is not what a 'kind' means.

So the Bible defines the word "kind"? Which verse? I want to know because it's "kind-a" undefined right now.

a poodle is a dog, a dalmation is a dog, both are dogs hence they are the same kind. And they can be cross bred like any other domestic dog.

And there are dog-kinds that can't interbreed. Just because they can or cannot can't be the definition for kind.

I keep on hearing that dogs only give dogs and cats cats, but poodles only make poodles too. So that definition doesn't work either.

Besides, cats and dogs are the same four-legged animal kind. So they are the same kind. They are the Carnivora kind. They're also Mammalia kind, just like us.

 

[Ouroboros]

The universe reflects the nature of God. Each part reflects something about its creator. Humans and all other parts each reflect/display some characteristics that other parts do not.

As one of the characteristics of God is that of creator the Universe is reflection of that.
A finished, unchanging universe would not have reflected many of God's qualities.

Interesting thought I had yesterday. Even the exclusive religious views are based on evolution.

God is selecting those who fits his criteria (supposedly). He's letting us find our own way, our random, chaotic, free-will way. But in the end, he will only keep those who are fit (evolved to his wishes) to keep in Heaven.

(If you believe in heaven that is.)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

False on both counts. Most Christian theologians accept the ToE as long as it is understood that all was ultimately caused by God.

Then I have beef with those Christians.

And there's a massive amount of data that clearly shows that evolution has indeed occurred.

What is the single most best piece of evidence for macroevolution?

 

[metis]

Then I have beef with those Christians.

So, you think you know more than these theologians, who have been analyzing the scriptures and history for many years? Are they morons, iyo?

What is the single most best piece of evidence for macroevolution?

It's obvious: everything changes over time, and genes are no exception. One doesn't have to open a Bible or theology book to understand that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So the Bible defines the word "kind"? Which verse? I want to know because it's "kind-a" undefined right now.

Dog kind, cat kind, fish kind, bear kind, elephant kind, bird kind, etc. Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

And there are dog-kinds that can't interbreed. Just because they can or cannot can't be the definition for kind.

Right, a cheetah can't interbreed with al lion, but they are clearly the same kind of animal. Both are of the "cat" kind. A dog and a wolf are different species (according to what scientists "tells" us), but they are clearly the same kind of animal. A wolf and a siberian husky...there isn't that much of a difference there.

I keep on hearing that dogs only give dogs and cats cats, but poodles only make poodles too. So that definition doesn't work either.

But a poodle is still a dog..hey, if I get to the point where I can only interbreed with African American women, does that mean that I am no longer a human? Did I stop becoming human? No.

Besides, cats and dogs are the same four-legged animal kind. So they are the same kind. They are the Carnivora kind. They're also Mammalia kind, just like us.

So if a human being is born deformed with two legs in place of his arms, he/she has four-legs...therefore, he/she is the same kind of animal as a cat and dog? Silly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, you think you know more than these theologians, who have been analyzing the scriptures and history for many years? Are they morons, iyo?

They are integrating the presuppositions of science/evolution and trying to make it fit with the bible, which is a mistake.

It's obvious: everything changes over time, and genes are no exception. One doesn't have to open a Bible or theology book to understand that.

But there are limits to the changes. The dogs of today will not become non-dogs by tomorrow. But the dogs of today may produce a different KIND of dog by tomorrow. That is what we observe; variations within the kind. There is no need to additionally believe in these large scale macro-changes...a.k.a, voodoo science.

 

[metis]

They are integrating the presuppositions of science/evolution and trying to make it fit with the bible, which is a mistake.

No, actually it's the other way around, namely that you're attempting to remake science so as to parrot what you believe. Do you believe there are metaphors, allegories, and symbols used in our scriptures?

But there are limits to the changes. The dogs of today will not become non-dogs by tomorrow. But the dogs of today may produce a different KIND of dog by tomorrow. That is what we observe; variations within the kind. There is no need to additionally believe in these large scale macro-changes...a.k.a, voodoo science.

If you were to be correct, then geneticists would totally agree with you, but they overwhelmingly don't. Genes change over time, and they know and every other scientist knows that, and the genome testing has borne this out conclusively. If there had been any serious doubt before (there really hasn't been over the last century), this was "the Clincher", even if you're not aware of that. What geneticists had predicted many decades ago has been substantiated beyond being refutable.

The game is over-- you're just not aware that it is.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, actually it's the other way around, namely that you're attempting to remake science so as to parrot what you believe. Do you believe there are metaphors, allegories, and symbols used in our scriptures?

I am quite aware...and I am also patient...patiently waiting on you to give me a scripture which either metaphorically, allegorically, or symbolically even REMOTELY hints evolution. Dazzle me.

If you were to be correct, then geneticists would totally agree with you, but they overwhelmingly don't.

What can a geneticists tell me? Point out similarities in DNA? A Christian can agree and still draw a different conclusion....they call it common ancestry...we call it common DESIGNER.

Genes change over time, and they know and every other scientist knows that, and the genome testing has borne this out conclusively. If there had been any serious doubt before (there really hasn't been over the last century), this was "the Clincher", even if you're not aware of that. What geneticists had predicted many decades ago has been substantiated beyond being refutable.

So as I've said countless times before...if scientists know so much, they should be able to simulate the right circumstances at which we can observe macroevolution as it is occuring, instead of relying on preconceived notions millions of years after the fact. But they can't, because it didn't happen.

If a geneticists can conduct all of these tests and experiments and determine that macroevolution has occurred in the past, then a geneticists should be able to conduct a test or experiement that will be able to jump start the process and allow macroevolution to occur.

And I will predict that your response will be "they can't because it takes so much time!!" Well yeah, it takes so much time if a mindless and blind process is behind the wheel, but it should take so much time if you have intelligent human beings behind the process, which will allow for a lot less trial and error that has taken place over the course of these millions of years that you claim it occurred in.

The game is over-- you're just not aware that it is.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. The game isn't over until you show me an exception to this.

 

[Ouroboros]

The game is over-- you're just not aware that it is.

I have a thought. It's caused by "knowledge or information isolation."

This whole thing reminds me of some stories (movies, books, etc) where there's this outlier person or group that's been disconnected from society and don't know that some previous war is over. They're still fighting it. Like time traveler stories where the guy comes from the cold war and can't understand how we're now in peace with Russia. The common factor of this problem is isolation. Same in this case. Creationists isolate themselves from updated research, knowledge, fact, evidence, etc, and only take in from approved sources which filters the information.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'm curious how unlike a cat something must be in order to be a not-cat from a cat. Like, where's the threshold?

 

[Ouroboros]

Besides, kotpies are cross-breeds of cat and dog. (I'm trying to confirm the Cornell and China reports of these hybrids, but the information is scarce.) So the whole, dogs can't interbreed with cats might not be as huge task after all... which would mean, yet another wall for "kind" taken down.

---edit

Bleh. Looked into it further, and it seems the kotpies are still just urban myths and photoshop.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm curious how unlike a cat something must be in order to be a not-cat from a cat. Like, where's the threshold?

It's arbitrary and based on agreements between humans.

We're still shuffling around species in the taxonomic tree because there's no hard and easy rule to when to put something in a higher or lower branch.

It's not easy genetically either because of the chances of genes crossing species through hybrids.

The "tree" isn't a proper illustration of how the genetic material flows through all life forms. You have forks and then reunited branches, and branching out again in multiple paths, reunited here and there, and so on. That might be one reason why there sometimes can be larger jumps in differences of traits. Two quite different, but compatible, species interbreed and mix genetic material.

When it comes to the issue of cats vs dogs. There are some specific distinctions. For instance the eyes. The cats eye is adapted to night vision much more so than dogs. And there are anatomical differences. But when it comes to the common ancestor of cats and dogs, it shares several of the anatomical features (can't tell you exactly which ones because it would take too much of my effort to research... and I'm lazy. LOL!)

 

[Sir Doom]

It's arbitrary and based on agreements between humans.

We're still shuffling around species in the taxonomic tree because there's no hard and easy rule to when to put something in a higher or lower branch.

It's not easy genetically either because of the chances of genes crossing species through hybrids.

The "tree" isn't a proper illustration of how the genetic material flows through all life forms. You have forks and then reunited branches, and branching out again in multiple paths, reunited here and there, and so on. That might be one reason why there sometimes can be larger jumps in differences of traits. Two quite different, but compatible, species interbreed and mix genetic material.

When it comes to the issue of cats vs dogs. There are some specific distinctions. For instance the eyes. The cats eye is adapted to night vision much more so than dogs. And there are anatomical differences. But when it comes to the common ancestor of cats and dogs, it shares several of the anatomical features (can't tell you exactly which ones because it would take too much of my effort to research... and I'm lazy. LOL!)

I know. What I mean is if the anti-evolution position is that a cat will only produce a cat until empirically demonstrated otherwise... just how uncatlike must the new animal be in order for the anti-evolutionist to say, "Okay, that's not a cat."

The question was intended rhetorically to demonstrate that there really is no threshold and the goalpost is quite mobile.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm curious how unlike a cat something must be in order to be a not-cat from a cat. Like, where's the threshold?

It's no longer a cat once it looks like this:

 

[Ouroboros]

I know. What I mean is if the anti-evolution position is that a cat will only produce a cat until empirically demonstrated otherwise... just how uncatlike must the new animal be in order for the anti-evolutionist to say, "Okay, that's not a cat."

The question was intended rhetorically to demonstrate that there really is no threshold and the goalpost is quite mobile.

Exactly.

The variation of cats (and dogs) is extensive. Some of them are not compatible anymore with their own species and have unique features. Technically, they're new "kinds".