Why would God create Evolution?

[Ouroboros]

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

That's just a cat with clothes and bow!!! You cheater you... putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a... whatever you would call it.

 

[Maldini]

The only valid argument I've seen against my case in this thread is :

God wanted to take things slow so he'd enjoy seeing the universe evolve into its today form.

I'd pose the question that why would God enjoy something that's similar to watching paint dry.

Second of all, if God is doing all that, so he could enjoy watching it, then this obviously means we're his toys, making him a bored freak more than anything else.

I think the idea of a perfect, all-knowing God is so ridiculous and outrageous that when you try to talk about different aspects of him it always reaches to such ridiculous conclusions.

I mean if you believe in a perfect God, you just do.

But I can never understand how can someone be totally OK with existence of a super-powerful perfect being who didn't need to be created and just has been there forever, but they think the idea of a slowly evolving not so perfect universe with no creation is so unacceptable.

 

[metis]

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.

No, I'm not going to waste my time trying to DAZZLE you because you simply don't understand the evolutionary process, nor serious theology. I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church until I realized that I was not being told the truth when it came to the ToE, which led to to wonder where else I wasn't being told the truth. I went on to become an anthropologist, and in my 30's I began to delve heavily into theology whereas I taught it (Christian theology) for 14 years, which doesn't include teaching comparative religions for two additional years.

The creation accounts are what is called a "myth", which doesn't mean falsehood but does mean that there are lessons taught within. Another such approach is called a "parable". We also are quite certain that the creation accounts are essentially a reworking of a much longer Babylonian narrative whereas the changes were made to reflect our (Jewish) morals and values. This Babylonian narrative predates the writing of Genesis by almost 2000 years, and some tablets with this same narrative inscribed were found in northern Israel, so we well know our ancestors had access to it.

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.

It's not just a matter of similarities.

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.

There's literally no way to simulate that over any short period of time. How could we go about replicating millions of years of evolution?

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.

See above.

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

Easy, just read some books on genetics as it applies to the evolutionary process, but the reality is that you really don't want to do this because you're afraid it'll change your paradigm. Unless you willing to take that risk, you will continue to believe in this falsehood, and maybe many others. I know as I was doing that same thing earlier in my life.

And then study the fossil record-- I mean really study it. If you believe God made all in six literal days, then how could you possibly account for the myriads of variations found in different layers of sediment? If God stopped creating on day 6, then how can new "kinds" emerge afterwards? If you truly believe in these accounts as literal history, they you are checkmated because there's no indication in the scriptures that God created any more after the 6th day.

And then you might find and read a book like "Revolt of the Faithful", written by a former Baptist pastor who had his own radio program, but who left that denomination to go to one whereas he wasn't being told falsehoods. He wrote that, in his Southern Baptist denomination, a confidential survey of pastors found that roughly 70% did understand that there was indeed an evolutionary process, but they also felt they couldn't mention this to their congregation or their denomination's leadership without the fear of losing their job.

So, if you're not willing to take the chance, you will continue to not be open to the truth on this matter, and you will continue to be led by the nose into falsehood. I know-- I was there.

 

[Sir Doom]

The only valid argument I've seen against my case in this thread is :

God wanted to take things slow so he'd enjoy seeing the universe evolve into its today form.

You must have missed mine. God is not almighty. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think that this is a valid argument considering what you are about to say about the almighty God in a second.

I'd pose the question that why would God enjoy something that's similar to watching paint dry.

You don't seem to understand the concept of time from the perspective of a being that ignores it. Things are not slow or fast for such a being. Going forward is the same as going backward. In fact, it isn't similar to paint drying at all... in encompasses paint drying. That would obviously be a miniscule part of what such a being would be 'watching'. Think about it.

Second of all, if God is doing all that, so he could enjoy watching it, then this obviously means we're his toys, making him a bored freak more than anything else.

Yes, just like George Lucas is a bored freak if he watches Star Wars. Oh... wait... that's ridiculous.

I think the idea of a perfect, all-knowing God is so ridiculous and outrageous that when you try to talk about different aspects of him it always reaches to such ridiculous conclusions.

Then why are you entertaining the idea? Why was my suggestion that God is not almighty not a 'valid argument' when you so clearly do not believe in the almighty God? It sounds like you think my argument has quite a bit of validity by comparison to the one you picked out as 'the only valid argument'.

I mean if you believe in a perfect God, you just do.

And if you don't you don't. And sometimes neither of these.

But I can never understand how can someone be totally OK with existence of a super-powerful perfect being who didn't need to be created and just has been there forever, but they think the idea of a slowly evolving not so perfect universe with no creation is so unacceptable.

Because those two ideas are incompatible. What's the big mystery here? Are you somehow unaware of how those two ideas don't fit together? A god that created everything vs. no creation at all? You don't see how those two things are polar opposites? You don't understand how people literally can't believe in both at once? Honestly, how do you not understand that?

 

[Maldini]

You must have missed mine. God is not almighty. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think that this is a valid argument considering what you are about to say about the almighty God in a second.

Well I can see a not almighty god. But it means he's pretty evil seems he has brought us a lot of misery for his own purposes, and I just think it's too unlikely to have a creature who's so skilled and so evil. It ain't a comic-book, we're talking about someone who is able to not only imagine, but create stuff. It's just too caricature.

I know I have no way of disproving an evil god, but I won't waste my time on him.

You don't seem to understand the concept of time from the perspective of a being that ignores it. Things are not slow or fast for such a being. Going forward is the same as going backward. In fact, it isn't similar to paint drying at all... in encompasses paint drying. That would obviously be a miniscule part of what such a being would be 'watching'. Think about it.

Well to your idea of a god, who is not almighty, anything can be true. It's totally open. You think it can be joyful for him to watch that, I think it could not be.

Yes, just like George Lucas is a bored freak if he watches Star Wars. Oh... wait... that's ridiculous.

A) George Lucas characters don't experience feelings, we do. We suffer, and God let that happens, that's for him being a freak.

B) If George Lucas watched his movie over billions of times, then he must have been bored.

Then why are you entertaining the idea? Why was my suggestion that God is not almighty not a 'valid argument' when you so clearly do not believe in the almighty God? It sounds like you think my argument has quite a bit of validity by comparison to the one you picked out as 'the only valid argument'.

It's actually less valid, since you're talking about a totally unimaginable beast. Not almighty, but he can turn nothing into matter and energy, functions in his own way and can never be known.

I agree that your " god " is actually possible, but he could be anything form a 12 headed alien to a kid who's creating universe as his elementary school in his super intelligent cosmos. And he is hiding himself form us, so we are alone and should not waste our time with him.

When Einstein was thinking about time-space, if someone entered the room and told him " What if it's all a magic trick done by aliens " , he would never call it impossible, but he would not think about it either since it serves no purpose.

And if you don't you don't. And sometimes neither of these.

Yup.

Because those two ideas are incompatible. What's the big mystery here? Are you somehow unaware of how those two ideas don't fit together? A god that created everything vs. no creation at all? You don't see how those two things are polar opposites? You don't understand how people literally can't believe in both at once? Honestly, how do you not understand that?

No they are not merely incompatible. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the craziest, god theory is 10 and evolution is 2 or 3. It doesn't make sense that more people would take 10. That's what i don't understand.

Evolution is figured out, unlike God, all it misses is how it begun. God is a 100% dark mystery, and it'll never be solved since the very definition of God makes him untouchable.

I hope now you know why I'm wondering about these stuff.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, I'm not going to waste my time trying to DAZZLE you because you simply don't understand the evolutionary process, nor serious theology.

I actually do understand the evolutionary process, which is why I am able to determine that it contradicts Christian theology...and seems impossible to be true if the God hypothesis is negated.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church until I realized that I was not being told the truth when it came to the ToE, which led to to wonder where else I wasn't being told the truth.

So the preacher with the suit lied to you, but the scientist with the lab coat told you the truth? Ok.

I went on to become an anthropologist, and in my 30's I began to delve heavily into theology whereas I taught it (Christian theology) for 14 years, which doesn't include teaching comparative religions for two additional years.

Ok.

The creation accounts are what is called a "myth", which doesn't mean falsehood but does mean that there are lessons taught within.

It is a myth to you...but to the billions of Christians in the world, it is a living reality.

Another such approach is called a "parable". We also are quite certain that the creation accounts are essentially a reworking of a much longer Babylonian narrative whereas the changes were made to reflect our (Jewish) morals and values. This Babylonian narrative predates the writing of Genesis by almost 2000 years, and some tablets with this same narrative inscribed were found in northern Israel, so we well know our ancestors had access to it.

So the Babylonian narrative told the story of a Maximally Great Being that transcended time and space which created the universe from nothing, with the first human inhabitants of the earth named Adam and Eve?? Oh...wow. Did this Babylonian narrative also tell the story of how God came on earth to die for the sins of mankind? Oh...wow.

It's not just a matter of similarities.

Well that is all a geneticists can do to help you justify your case for the theory.

There's literally no way to simulate that over any short period of time. How could we go about replicating millions of years of evolution?

Laughable. This is equivilent to telling me it will take millions of years for a blind mentally ill man to find his way in a 5000 sqr ft maze...and it will also take millions of years for a highly intelligent human being with 20/20 vision with a map of the maze and gps system to find his way in the same maze.

My point is simple. If it takes millions of years for a mindless, blind, trail and error process to get anything done...then it should take less time for intelligent human beings to get the same job done.

Easy, just read some books on genetics as it applies to the evolutionary process, but the reality is that you really don't want to do this because you're afraid it'll change your paradigm. Unless you willing to take that risk, you will continue to believe in this falsehood, and maybe many others. I know as I was doing that same thing earlier in my life.

The bigger question for me is life from non-life...and consciousness from unconsciousness....and right now there is no viable theory as to how you can get life from non-living matterial, and how you can naturally get consciousness from unconsciousness.

And as I said before, for those that are naturalists...there is no way you can assume evolution is true if you can't scientifically prove that life came come from nonlife. No way, no how.

And then study the fossil record-- I mean really study it.

There is no "fossil record". If you find a set of fossils, and you determine anything other than "this once living thing has now died"...then you are over-analyzing the evidence. You are going beyond necessity. To say that any fossil of the distant past has a common ancestor to ANYTHING in the present is to let your presuppositions interpret the evidence for you.

If you believe God made all in six literal days, then how could you possibly account for the myriads of variations found in different layers of sediment? If God stopped creating on day 6, then how can new "kinds" emerge afterwards? If you truly believe in these accounts as literal history, they you are checkmated because there's no indication in the scriptures that God created any more after the 6th day.

There are those that question the various dating methods, from the geological methods the chemical methods. There are some YEC, and some OEC...regardless of which is true, at least one of those two are true. I am not completely sold on either one...but if I had a choice, I am leaning towards OEC.

And then you might find and read a book like "Revolt of the Faithful", written by a former Baptist pastor who had his own radio program, but who left that denomination to go to one whereas he wasn't being told falsehoods. He wrote that, in his Southern Baptist denomination, a confidential survey of pastors found that roughly 70% did understand that there was indeed an evolutionary process, but they also felt they couldn't mention this to their congregation or their denomination's leadership without the fear of losing their job.

I am very weary of those kind of surveys.

So, if you're not willing to take the chance, you will continue to not be open to the truth on this matter, and you will continue to be led by the nose into falsehood. I know-- I was there.

Sorry charlie. My God doesn't need a trial and error process to create anything. My God got it right the first time.

 

[Parsimony]

My point is simple. If it takes millions of years for a mindless, blind, trail and error process to get anything done...then it should take less time for intelligent human beings to get the same job done.

If humans are doing things directly (by, say, changing the genetic codes of creatures using technology), then it's no longer evolution. It's genetic engineering.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If humans are doing things directly (by, say, changing the genetic codes of creatures using technology), then it's no longer evolution. It's genetic engineering.

Yeah but at least we would be able to determine whether or not such changes (macroevolution) can occur at ALL. What I am saying is, if you claim it can occur naturally, and we KNOW it can occur naturally, then humans should be able to orchestrate a genetically engineered process to get the same effect.

If humans can't do it, then I sincerely doubt that nature can do it.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah but at least we would be able to determine whether or not such changes (macroevolution) can occur at ALL. What I am saying is, if you claim it can occur naturally, and we KNOW it can occur naturally, then humans should be able to orchestrate a genetically engineered process to get the same effect.

So, if nature can produce stars then humans should be able to engineer matter to get the same thing. All right!!!

And if nature can produce the elephant brain then humans should be able to engineer the same. Double; all-all right-right

If humans can't do it, then I sincerely doubt that nature can do it.

So, if humans can't construct a tornado (a violently rotating column of air that is in contact with both the surface of the earth and a cumulonimbus cloud or, in rare cases, the base of a cumulus cloud) then it's doubtful that nature can.

 

[Ouroboros]

The only valid argument I've seen against my case in this thread is :

God wanted to take things slow so he'd enjoy seeing the universe evolve into its today form.

Wanted to take it slow? Did I say that?

I said more like that perhaps God wanted to see the process and how it unfolds.

Scientists do exactly those things today. Take the e-coli experiment that's been going on for 30 years. Do you think Lenski is doing it because it takes a long and slow time and makes him bored?

I'd pose the question that why would God enjoy something that's similar to watching paint dry.

I see. The things you like to do, God likes to do. The things you don't like, God don't like. I'd say God seems to be just like you. Amazing.

Your motivations and ideas about what's interesting or not can't be the same as God, unless you consider to be God. Are you?

Second of all, if God is doing all that, so he could enjoy watching it, then this obviously means we're his toys, making him a bored freak more than anything else.

Wow... uhm... I'm not sure how you got from one to the other. I think you need to spend a little contemplation on what the false analogy in your statement was...

I think the idea of a perfect, all-knowing God is so ridiculous and outrageous that when you try to talk about different aspects of him it always reaches to such ridiculous conclusions.

You have two views here:

1) God does things according to what Moses (we assume) 2,500 years ago
2) God does things according to what Nature tells us today and all back to billions of years ago.

Nature is testifying about God's work. Why are you rejecting God's witness based on some ancient guy you don't even know?

I mean if you believe in a perfect God, you just do.

Nature is beautiful. Why deny it?

But I can never understand how can someone be totally OK with existence of a super-powerful perfect being who didn't need to be created and just has been there forever, but they think the idea of a slowly evolving not so perfect universe with no creation is so unacceptable.

Perhaps you just need to expand you view a little then. If you can't understand how, then perhaps the problem isn't about that it can be, but that you can't do.

 

[Sir Doom]

Well I can see a not almighty god. But it means he's pretty evil seems he has brought us a lot of misery for his own purposes, and I just think it's too unlikely to have a creature who's so skilled and so evil. It ain't a comic-book, we're talking about someone who is able to not only imagine, but create stuff. It's just too caricature.

I know I have no way of disproving an evil god, but I won't waste my time on him.

You are assuming all of these qualities. A fallible God need not be evil to create misery in the world. You are adding that because you aren't actually making the basic assumption your OP suggests. You are supposed to be assuming God exists for the premise. But here you are making an excuse as to why you don't believe it instead of recognizing how it answers the question you presented.

Well to your idea of a god, who is not almighty, anything can be true. It's totally open. You think it can be joyful for him to watch that, I think it could not be.

That's the trick of it, isn't it? God is exactly as we each see it. Even you, who does not believe, are here deciding what God is like.

A) George Lucas characters don't experience feelings, we do. We suffer, and God let that happens, that's for him being a freak.

This is the second time you've switched from 'Why would God create evolution?' to the problem of evil. This does not seem to be how you used the word freak the first time. Please stop trying to change the subject.

Too late!

Lucas murdered Padme specifically because he knew the emotional response within Anakin would push him to the dark side and become Darth Vader. All of that predicated on the fact that they were emotionally attached in the first place (something else he created intentionally to bring about Darth Vader). Now, as you say, these are not people. They don't have emotions really, but we do. AND the actors that portrayed these characters certainly do, as well. And we think nothing of creating this fictional reality in our heads and slaughtering thousands of people at our whim for pure entertainment. But we judge God evil for doing the same?

B) If George Lucas watched his movie over billions of times, then he must have been bored.

How many time is Lucas allowed to see it before it indicates boredom? This is a moving goalpost.

It's actually less valid, since you're talking about a totally unimaginable beast. Not almighty, but he can turn nothing into matter and energy, functions in his own way and can never be known.

As opposed to the completely imaginable almighty being? And again, you are the one adding all of these qualities. I don't even believe God needs to have created all of reality in order to answer your OP. Only life itself. That does not require making matter and energy out of nothing, nor does it require that God 'can never be known' which I also don't believe. I have no clue what 'functions in his own way' is supposed to mean here. Please explain that.

I agree that your " god " is actually possible, but he could be anything form a 12 headed alien to a kid who's creating universe as his elementary school in his super intelligent cosmos.

None of which would preclude it from creating evolution provided it had the capability to do so. Which it must be assumed from your OP that it does have that capability.

And he is hiding himself form us, so we are alone and should not waste our time with him.

Just another excuse not to consider the answer valid. Totally arbitrary and completely aside from the question, "Why would God create evolution?"

When Einstein was thinking about time-space, if someone entered the room and told him " What if it's all a magic trick done by aliens " , he would never call it impossible, but he would not think about it either since it serves no purpose.

I think you're quite mistaken. I assume Einstein would entertain just about any idea on hypothetical terms. Which is all that is needed for a thread of this kind. You know, since that's all that is possible anyway.

No they are not merely incompatible. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the craziest, god theory is 10 and evolution is 2 or 3. It doesn't make sense that more people would take 10. That's what i don't understand.

More people don't. Not sure where you are getting your numbers.

Evolution is figured out, unlike God, all it misses is how it begun. God is a 100% dark mystery, and it'll never be solved since the very definition of God makes him untouchable.

YOUR definition of God makes him untouchable. But you don't even believe in that definition of God, so why is it so hard for you to shift to another version that makes more sense and examine that?

The premise of your OP is to assume that both God and evolution exist and why. Diminishing God to something less than almighty makes evolution a method of creating life as opposed to placing God as the magical wizard who snapped his fingers and 'poof' reality. And though this need not be believed by anyone at all for the very same reasons, you must admit that this presents a plausible scenario within which God and evolution exist simultaneously. All other fringe aspects about God are irrelevant to the question and certainly not implied by my answer.

I hope now you know why I'm wondering about these stuff.

I don't think you are wondering about them. I think you haven't given more than a cursory glance at the responses to your OP.

 

[Parsimony]

Yeah but at least we would be able to determine whether or not such changes (macroevolution) can occur at ALL. What I am saying is, if you claim it can occur naturally, and we KNOW it can occur naturally, then humans should be able to orchestrate a genetically engineered process to get the same effect.

If humans can't do it, then I sincerely doubt that nature can do it.

In principle we could, if we had enough time. One of the huge limiting factors is the time it takes for organisms to reach maturity and reproduce. If you want to speed evolution up 1-million fold (to get, say, 10 million years of evolution to happen in only 10 years), you'd have to find some way to make generation times 1 million times shorter as well. That's more than a little bit beyond our capabilities.

Just because we can't do something in the laboratory doesn't mean it can't happen naturally. We can't generate gravitational fields on demand despite the fact that "dumb matter" like planets do it all the time.

 

[Maldini]

Wanted to take it slow? Did I say that?

I said more like that perhaps God wanted to see the process and how it unfolds.

Scientists do exactly those things today. Take the e-coli experiment that's been going on for 30 years. Do you think Lenski is doing it because it takes a long and slow time and makes him bored?

God would exactly know everything about it. He is not experimenting. He knows everything about it. There's no point in watching it.

Unless you'll wanna say that time has n meaning to him, or stuff like God is not perfect, which is not the God I'm talking about and It's not the Talk religion talks about.

I see. The things you like to do, God likes to do. The things you don't like, God don't like. I'd say God seems to be just like you. Amazing.

Your motivations and ideas about what's interesting or not can't be the same as God, unless you consider to be God. Are you?

I'm not God, so I can't say anything about him. Kinda makes this whole forum pointless, since no one is God but they are talking about him and his stuff. How dare they?

2 + 2 = 4, no matter who you are.

Wow... uhm... I'm not sure how you got from one to the other. I think you need to spend a little contemplation on what the false analogy in your statement was...

If God takes interest in creating us and then watching what happens to us, that makes us his toys. His form of entertainment. We didn't ask him to do that, he did it himself and for himself.

You have two views here:

1) God does things according to what Moses (we assume) 2,500 years ago
2) God does things according to what Nature tells us today and all back to billions of years ago.

Nature is testifying about God's work. Why are you rejecting God's witness based on some ancient guy you don't even know?

True, Except nature has absolutely no way of telling us anything about a God. If anything Nature tells us how a God and a designer is not the way things are they way they are.

Nature gives us kids born with harsh disabilities. It's not telling me anything about God, it tells me it's a process that does not lead to good results every time, something totally un-godlike.

Nature is beautiful. Why deny it?

Beautiful is a small part of it. Lots of ugly things are in it, and No one's denying Nature, as a matter of fact I, same as you, am saying that nature is all. But I'm not seeing a God behind it.

Perhaps you just need to expand you view a little then. If you can't understand how, then perhaps the problem isn't about that it can be, but that you can't do.

Or perhaps you need to understand that the right answer is not the one that makes you feel good in your tummy, or it's not the one that seems pretty and beatiful, but it's the one that is logically sound.

Logically, the idea of God should be the last thing we accept as an answer.

 

[Maldini]

You are assuming all of these qualities. A fallible God need not be evil to create misery in the world. You are adding that because you aren't actually making the basic assumption your OP suggests. You are supposed to be assuming God exists for the premise. But here you are making an excuse as to why you don't believe it instead of recognizing how it answers the question you presented.

Well we need to have a basic definition of God before we can start any debate.

I'm saying your type of God kills any need for debate. We should just accept him and accept that we'll never know his ways, that kills any motion to have a debate about God.

but there are stuff we can be sure, no matter how he is. He is evil, since he does make us suffer. I'm not talking about evil, no. You can't deny that every human being has suffered for periods of time in his/her life. God may not see it as suffering, but we do. So he is evil.

That's the trick of it, isn't it? God is exactly as we each see it. Even you, who does not believe, are here deciding what God is like.

I'm deciding, if hell froze over, and there was a god, then how it might be. It's a trick, but it doesn't serve any purpose, and it stops us humans of form progressing as a race.

I'm talking about it though, because I want people to see that whoever god is, and whatever his existence situation is, we should not waste our times with him.

This is the second time you've switched from 'Why would God create evolution?' to the problem of evil. This does not seem to be how you used the word freak the first time. Please stop trying to change the subject.

Too late!

Lucas murdered Padme specifically because he knew the emotional response within Anakin would push him to the dark side and become Darth Vader. All of that predicated on the fact that they were emotionally attached in the first place (something else he created intentionally to bring about Darth Vader). Now, as you say, these are not people. They don't have emotions really, but we do. AND the actors that portrayed these characters certainly do, as well. And we think nothing of creating this fictional reality in our heads and slaughtering thousands of people at our whim for pure entertainment. But we judge God evil for doing the same

?

Wow. I'm speechless. I'm not talking about Evil problem per se, I'm talkig about how stupid your god would be.

Your whole Star Wars analogy is going through my head.

How many time is Lucas allowed to see it before it indicates boredom? This is a moving goalpost.

Again with the unpredictable god. It's exhausting. How do you know he's bored? The cornerstone of your whole argument.

As opposed to the completely imaginable almighty being? And again, you are the one adding all of these qualities. I don't even believe God needs to have created all of reality in order to answer your OP. Only life itself. That does not require making matter and energy out of nothing, nor does it require that God 'can never be known' which I also don't believe. I have no clue what 'functions in his own way' is supposed to mean here. Please explain that.

The whole life and universe are connected, proven by science. God, whatever he may be, is obviously intelligent enough to be able to tame all that for his creation purposes. My Original point was that God would not be compatible with Evolution. your just trying to tell me I'm assuming a God, and there could be a God who could be compatible, and I'm trying to say that God's specifics won't change my argument, because no matter how he exactly is, a God figure would not do it by the way of evolution. My argument is actually more about Evolution than God.

Every time I say anything about God, your response is that God could be different. So how could you ever say there may be a way to know God? Because anyone can refute anything about God the way you try to refute everything I say about God.

None of which would preclude it from creating evolution provided it had the capability to do so. Which it must be assumed from your OP that it does have that capability.

Capabilities are not separate form someone's nature. Something that has come up with Evolution must have been almighty enough, much more complicated, smart and powerful than anything we've seen in universe.

So your idea of God must be in sync with his capability of creating evolution, hence why God could not be anything you imagine it to be.

I know in the strictest sense, God could actually be a super-smart lousy *******, but if God is like that, then I'm not talking about him in my OP. I'm talking about an almighty alright God, and the fact that such God would not need to create evolution.

I'm not arguing anything about the other types of possibilities for God. Yes they would create Evolution, but then they wouldn't be God as it's mostly believed by people.

Just another excuse not to consider the answer valid. Totally arbitrary and completely aside from the question, "Why would God create evolution?"

It's an attempt top evade your childish excuse for believing how a god could create evolution and be a totally different being than what majority think of God.

I think you're quite mistaken. I assume Einstein would entertain just about any idea on hypothetical terms. Which is all that is needed for a thread of this kind. You know, since that's all that is possible anyway.

No hell not. There can be billions of hypothetical ideas, nobody has the time, or the need, to review them all. You should go after the ones that may lead to a result, otherwise you are wasting your time with stuff that doesn't help you one bit, the type of argument that you're trying to have.

You're not talking about Evolution and its nature at all, you just keep repeating the same argument which is there could be a God would would create Evolution. There can be billions of definitions for God, i think when i made the OP it was clear I'm talking about the ones that make sense for us to talk about.

Your argument is not invalid, but it stops us form progressing one bit on the issue, that's why Einstein would not give one second of his precious time thinking about it.

More people don't. Not sure where you are getting your numbers.

You know what i mean by my numbers, it's just a way of me expressing my idea.

YOUR definition of God makes him untouchable. But you don't even believe in that definition of God, so why is it so hard for you to shift to another version that makes more sense and examine that?

The premise of your OP is to assume that both God and evolution exist and why. Diminishing God to something less than almighty makes evolution a method of creating life as opposed to placing God as the magical wizard who snapped his fingers and 'poof' reality. And though this need not be believed by anyone at all for the very same reasons, you must admit that this presents a plausible scenario within which God and evolution exist simultaneously. All other fringe aspects about God are irrelevant to the question and certainly not implied by my answer.

You seem to agree with me about the almighty God and how he wouldn't create Evolution, which is good.

but I don't buy your theory of a God who is not almighty but somehow managed to make the whole universe the way it is. We're beating a dead horse, since this argument , unlike the one about an almighty God, is a work of our gut feelings and can't be really tested, because this type of God is totally unknowable.

I'm not saying it's not a valid argument, I'm saying it doesn't add anything to our quest to seek truth.

And I agree since I don't beelive in God, then it seems a bit ridiculous that I have a definition for God in my mind, but i think my personal stance on God has nothing to do with this debate.

I don't think you are wondering about them. I think you haven't given more than a cursory glance at the responses to your OP.

I have, but most of them is the way people like things to be, not an argument.

I have a god in my imagination that is so cool, who has created everything and makes me feel good about my existence =/= a true argument.

 

[metis]

I actually do understand the evolutionary process, which is why I am able to determine that it contradicts Christian theology...and seems impossible to be true if the God hypothesis is negated.

Actually, when I read your entire post here, it clearly indicates that you really do not understand what the ToE is as you often attach things to it that are just hypotheses at best. Nor does the ToE negate God or Christian theology in any way, which is why most Christian theologians accept it as being likely.

So the preacher with the suit lied to you, but the scientist with the lab coat told you the truth? Ok.

I wouldn't say "lie" as that seemingly implies that the minister told an untruth intentionally. And it was another minister in another Christian denomination that explained to me that there is no contradiction between the ToE and Genesis, but I was very far from certain that he was correct, and it took quite a few years before I could verify that he was.

It is a myth to you...but to the billions of Christians in the world, it is a living reality.

"Myth" does not mean or imply falsehood in theology as I explained to you previously, so it appears that you don't understand even the basic foundation of theology any more than you understand the ToE.

So the Babylonian narrative told the story of a Maximally Great Being that transcended time and space which created the universe from nothing, with the first human inhabitants of the earth named Adam and Eve?? Oh...wow. Did this Babylonian narrative also tell the story of how God came on earth to die for the sins of mankind? Oh...wow.

Didn't you actually read where I said we appear to have "reworked" it? What does "rework" mean to you-- nothing?

Well that is all a geneticists can do to help you justify your case for the theory.

I don't think they "justify" my case because of me.

Laughable. This is equivilent to telling me it will take millions of years for a blind mentally ill man to find his way in a 5000 sqr ft maze...and it will also take millions of years for a highly intelligent human being with 20/20 vision with a map of the maze and gps system to find his way in the same maze.
My point is simple. If it takes millions of years for a mindless, blind, trail and error process to get anything done...

Who said it's "mindless" or "blind"? There are a great many Christians, actually a majority of them, who feel there was and is an evolutionary process but that this process was at the least started by God and probably tweaked by God. Again, you're confused as to what the ToE actually does say.

The bigger question for me is life from non-life...and consciousness from unconsciousness....
And as I said before, for those that are naturalists...there is no way you can assume evolution is true if you can't scientifically prove that life came come from nonlife. No way, no how.

Again, this is only a hypothesis, and there are various other hypotheses dealing with this matter.

There is no "fossil record". If you find a set of fossils, and you determine anything other than "this once living thing has now died"...then you are over-analyzing the evidence. You are going beyond necessity. To say that any fossil of the distant past has a common ancestor to ANYTHING in the present is to let your presuppositions interpret the evidence for you.

This is just way too wrong, and you really undermine your entire position when you post such nonsense. However, you have the full right to post nonsense-- I'll give you that.

There are some YEC, and some OEC...regardless of which is true, at least one of those two are true. I am not completely sold on either one...but if I had a choice, I am leaning towards OEC.

Good, and I say this because at least it allows you enough wiggle-room to eventually understand that time is a major player in the ToE.

I am very weary of those kind of surveys.

Unless they were to agree with you, I assume?

Sorry charlie. My God doesn't need a trial and error process to create anything. My God got it right the first time.

Name ain't "charlie", but again you show with this statement alone that you simply do not understand the ToE as it doesn't deny the possibility of God or that God was behind all.

Anyhow, I probably won't be able to respond again because I have some time constraints this weekend and early next week because we're moving to our place up north.

Shalom and take care.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In principle we could, if we had enough time. One of the huge limiting factors is the time it takes for organisms to reach maturity and reproduce.

And one can argue that to even reach the point of reproduction...just that alone, would require fine tuning at the molecular level.

If you want to speed evolution up 1-million fold (to get, say, 10 million years of evolution to happen in only 10 years), you'd have to find some way to make generation times 1 million times shorter as well. That's more than a little bit beyond our capabilities.

So how long will it take for a cat to begin to produce a non-cat?? What has to happen? If you are able to tell me what will happen, then you should be able to simulate the right circumstances to make it happen...you called it "genetic engineering"....well...there you go. Make it happen. All talk and no action. You are basically saying "Given enough time, nature will figure it out"...instead of "Given enough time, humans can figure it out".

Just because we can't do something in the laboratory doesn't mean it can't happen naturally. We can't generate gravitational fields on demand despite the fact that "dumb matter" like planets do it all the time.

Right, it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally, but there is no observational proof that it happens naturally...no scientific proof. So if these things are lacking, then I have no reasons to believe it to be true.

 

[Ouroboros]

God would exactly know everything about it. He is not experimenting. He knows everything about it. There's no point in watching it.

The omniscient and prescient God image might not be the right one. If you really think about some of the stories in the Bible, YHWH seemed to not know the outcome at times. For instance, he regrets making the humans and that's why he sends the flood. (if I remember the story right)

Unless you'll wanna say that time has n meaning to him, or stuff like God is not perfect, which is not the God I'm talking about and It's not the Talk religion talks about.

Why is omniscience a sign of perfection? That might be misconception too.

This whole omniscient, omnipresent, all benevolent, perfect God etc is a philosophical construct to defend the belief in a God we don't know enough about. God might not be all these things that we think.

I'm not God, so I can't say anything about him. Kinda makes this whole forum pointless, since no one is God but they are talking about him and his stuff. How dare they?

2 + 2 = 4, no matter who you are.
If God takes interest in creating us and then watching what happens to us, that makes us his toys. His form of entertainment. We didn't ask him to do that, he did it himself and for himself.

If God creates us by hand from dust without evolution... then we are his toys too! Your conclusion wouldn't change just because he used this or that method.

In fact, all toys that you buy in the store are designed right now by hand.

But medication, plants (for our food), animals (also for food), are produced knowing about how evolution works!

So the facts say otherwise.

True, Except nature has absolutely no way of telling us anything about a God. If anything Nature tells us how a God and a designer is not the way things are they way they are.

I didn't say they tell us about who and what God is... but it will tell us about how God made the world.

Nature gives us kids born with harsh disabilities. It's not telling me anything about God, it tells me it's a process that does not lead to good results every time, something totally un-godlike.

Or perhaps our understanding of what truly "good" is to God is wrong. Gnostics believed in an evil demiurge God. We really don't know, do we? What we can know is how Nature works. And that's what science is about.

Beautiful is a small part of it. Lots of ugly things are in it, and No one's denying Nature, as a matter of fact I, same as you, am saying that nature is all. But I'm not seeing a God behind it.

Aaaah!... I had the impression you were a believer. LOL!

Ok.

Or perhaps you need to understand that the right answer is not the one that makes you feel good in your tummy, or it's not the one that seems pretty and beatiful, but it's the one that is logically sound.

Logically, the idea of God should be the last thing we accept as an answer.

I've had you all wrong. I thought you were a believer. LOL!

I'm a sexed up atheist, i.e. naturalistic pan(en)theist. I describe Nature as God. After all, Nature is stronger, bigger, older, will stay here after I'm gone, it gave birth to me, and Nature creates things. And I can watch a sunset in awe and meditate on its beauty and commune with nature's other beings like friends and pets, so in many senses, Nature is just like a god.

 

[ametist]

I think it is weird to ask why god creates something or anything. it is in the nature of god. God creates. Anything that we can think of or do not think of, anything in this realm or any other realms that we have no way of recognizing. there is no reason why each possibliity that can be created isnt created by god for no particular reason at all.. because god creates.

 

[Parsimony]

And one can argue that to even reach the point of reproduction...just that alone, would require fine tuning at the molecular level.

Evolution is compatible with the fine-tuned universe argument.

So how long will it take for a cat to begin to produce a non-cat?? What has to happen? If you are able to tell me what will happen, then you should be able to simulate the right circumstances to make it happen...you called it "genetic engineering"....well...there you go. Make it happen. All talk and no action. You are basically saying "Given enough time, nature will figure it out"...instead of "Given enough time, humans can figure it out".

There is no clear-cut line at which an organism would suddenly become a non-cat anymore than there is a clear-cut boundary between blue and green in the rainbow. A population of cats could become decreasingly cat-like over time due to mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, etc., but the exact time at which it stops consisting of cats would be a matter of opinion. You said that you understand how evolution works, but if you think that humans can simulate millions of years of evolution in one human life time then there is something somewhere that you don't understand about it.

Also, think about what would happen if humans did simulated macroevolution in the lab. Then creationists would just use that as evidence that intelligence is necessary to bring about the existence of new kinds (regardless of what experimental procedures were actually used). It's a lose-lose situation. If we can't do it, creationists are unconvinced. If we could do it, creationists would still be unconvinced.

Right, it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally, but there is no observational proof that it happens naturally...no scientific proof. So if these things are lacking, then I have no reasons to believe it to be true.

There is no observational proof in a lot of criminal cases either. Evidence picked up at the scene has to tell the story. Same thing with the evolution. You have to look at the age and placement of fossils. If fossils had random ages and random geographical distributions, then one could not derive anything meaningful from them about evolution. However, there is a definite pattern to when and where you find specific types of fossils. Land mammal fossils predate whale fossils. Unless whales came out of nowhere one day, they must have evolved from prior existing forms and land mammals are the most likely candidate.

The idea that things cannot evolve outside of their kinds has its own predictions. If there are certain genes in a cat which make it a cat and those genes cannot change, then it means that those genes are mutation-proof and are not subject to selection pressures. However, all known genes are subject to mutation. If a mutation-proof gene was found, that would be a major discovery. Sounds like something the creationists should be searching for.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually, when I read your entire post here, it clearly indicates that you really do not understand what the ToE is as you often attach things to it that are just hypotheses at best. Nor does the ToE negate God or Christian theology in any way, which is why most Christian theologians accept it as being likely.

Well first off, I disagree that "most" Christian theologians accept it...second, macroevolution does contradict Christian theism. I've asked you to give me the scripture at which evolution is even hinted, and I didn't get it yet.

I wouldn't say "lie" as that seemingly implies that the minister told an untruth intentionally. And it was another minister in another Christian denomination that explained to me that there is no contradiction between the ToE and Genesis, but I was very far from certain that he was correct, and it took quite a few years before I could verify that he was.

Did this minister ever witness a dog produce a non-dog? Probably not. So I don't know what you were "told", but you probably received the same bio-babble from him that you can get in any classroom in the United States which teaches the theory.

"Myth" does not mean or imply falsehood in theology as I explained to you previously, so it appears that you don't understand even the basic foundation of theology any more than you understand the ToE.

Um, myths can imply false theology...and the understanding of evolution is simple...evolution is the theory that the animals of today came from different kinds of animals from yesterday. That is the theory in a nut shell, and it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand it. When you take away the fluff and feathers...and the bio-babble that comes with it, that is what the theory entails.

Didn't you actually read where I said we appear to have "reworked" it? What does "rework" mean to you-- nothing?

Actually, it is irrelevant. You nor anyone else can prove who was the very first civilization to think of the entire universe as "created" from nothing by a supernatural Deity which transcended time and space. Can you do that? Who did the Ancient Babylonians still their account from?? Do you know? Where you there? So all of this "we are quite certain" crap is bogus.

But what we do know is this; the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past, and this beginning is BEST explained with the postulation of an all-powerful supernatural Deity...and as far as I can tell, the Genesis 1:1 account provides the best narrative...that the universe began to exist..."In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Who said it's "mindless" or "blind"? There are a great many Christians, actually a majority of them, who feel there was and is an evolutionary process but that this process was at the least started by God and probably tweaked by God. Again, you're confused as to what the ToE actually does say.

LOL...it NEVER fails...NEVER. Whenever a person doesn't buy into the evolution crap, and calls the theory in to question as a skeptic...they get accused of being ignorant of the theory. "You just don't understand it". "You just dont know what evolution is"....as if only a select few people on this earth actually understands the theory and the rest of us are just dumb lol. It never fails.

I don't believe in evolution because of what I don't know...I don't believe in evolution based on what I DO know. You are telling me that long ago, when no one was around to see it happen, animals began these voodoo changes...and I am saying there is no evidence for this whatsoever. You can believe it all you want, but don't call it science, because science is based on what you can see and experiment....and no one has ever OBSERVED macroevolution, nor can one conduct an experiment at which the results of the test would imply macroevolution. Those two elements of science (observation and experiment) are lacking when it comes to macroevolution...so there is no reason to not only call it science, but there is no reason to BELIEVE in it...PERIOD.

And as for all of these so called Christians that believe in evolution...they've either duped themselves into believing the theory...or they've been duped by others into believing the theory...but they are screwed either way.

Again, this is only a hypothesis, and there are various other hypotheses dealing with this matter.

Hypothesis' are guesses....give me your single best guess on how you can get consciousness from unconsciousness...how can non-living material begin to start "thinking"?

This is just way too wrong, and you really undermine your entire position when you post such nonsense. However, you have the full right to post nonsense-- I'll give you that.

I would expect it to be "way too wrong" to someone that already believes in the theory. For the many people that DON'T believe in evolution...saying that reptiles evolved into birds is also "way too wrong".

Good, and I say this because at least it allows you enough wiggle-room to eventually understand that time is a major player in the ToE.

You know how the Trinity is the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally God? Well, there is a trinity doctrine with evolution; Evolution, Time, and Faith.

Time is one part of the trinity god of evolution. You see, evolutionists know that all observations point towards microevolution (variations within the time), and they have to explain why we don't observe these voodoo changes of macroevolution...so they throw time in the mix...and their line of reasoning is, "if you give it time, it will happen"....and it takes SO MUCH TIME that no one that is alive today will be able to see macroevolution occur, just like no one was around to see it occur millions of years ago.

If you don't see the scam/con involved with this, I can't help you.

Unless they were to agree with you, I assume?

Shakespear: To agree, or not to agree.

Name ain't "charlie",

Smh.

but again you show with this statement alone that you simply do not understand the ToE as it doesn't deny the possibility of God or that God was behind all.

Anyhow, I probably won't be able to respond again because I have some time constraints this weekend and early next week because we're moving to our place up north.

Shalom and take care.

Have a safe move..and remember...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish...and until you see any exception to this, lets stop with the voodoo science, ok?