Why would God create Evolution?

[Skwim]

Why not just plant everything immediately? Why take 13 .82 billion years before putting Humans on Earth?

And why wipe out nearly all life, the innocent along with the guilty, with a global flood when after the waters subside nothing is essentially changed anyway?

'Tis a puzzlement :sad:this god of the Christians.

 

[nazz]

Why not just plant everything immediately? Why take 13 .82 billion years before putting Humans on Earth?

You either accept Evolution or not. And If you do, saying stuff like God's the force behind Evolution, or God has created evolution is meaningless because when you can create stuff from scratch, why create Evolution? Why not just make the products? To mess with smart people who study science?

More importantly why are your ideas about God so limited?

 

[nazz]

It's funny religious people never reply to this question.



That would be the true question but most of religious people always have some crap answer for that.

But the question I asked always shuts them up.

 

[Sir Doom]

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

Actually, we don't. But if you wanted everyone to stick to your specific definition of God, then why didn't you just put that in the OP?

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.

That's not true at all. What kills it is your inability to form a counter-argument.

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.

No, if God had no intention of making us suffer, then he isn't evil even if he's responsible. Negligent at worst. And even that is a stretch which requires you to prove there is something God could do about it and doesn't. But you can't prove that, can you?

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.

Nonsense. Tell me, how progressed would we be if we had never created the concept of God? Show us your powers of lateral time-travel.

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.

By specifically wasting your time with him? Nice strategy. Do as I say, not as I do. That should work well.

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

Actually, you were talking about how God is a 'freak'. First, because of how much time he spends watching us, second because he's evil, and now third because he's stupid.

You should make up your mind as to what 'freak' means to you. And then you should make some effort to actually qualify God as the 'freak' you define it as.

Your whole Star Wars analogy is going through my head.

Its not my fault you can't grasp it. It isn't really that tough. It makes no difference, of course since its a completely unrelated topic. As I said before giving it.

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

Actually, the cornerstone of YOUR argument is that it would be boring to watch creation. Thus, I'm asking YOU how YOU know that. YOU are making the claim YOU must demonstrate its truth. And YOU are failing to do so. The question about Lucas is rhetorical to demonstrate you don't actually have any idea why it would make God bored to watch creation.

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.

What makes this obvious? I don't believe it. You don't believe it. How is it obvious?

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.

Again, you are telling me what God would or would not do without making any effort to explain why you think this is the case. You are just arbitrarily deciding the way it is. And you are doing so specifically so you can argue against exactly what you are arbitrarily deciding. THAT makes no sense.

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.

I just assume at some point, God will show up. Until then, yes it is exactly as you say. We all just make it up as we go. Unfortunately for you, I actually think these things out quite a bit. I don't just arbitrarily decide what God is like. You do that. I question your decision. Your inability to explain why you want God to be any particular way makes it easy for me to dismiss your particular version God.

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.

'Almighty enough' isn't really a sensible term. But, you are actually agreeing with me here. I'm sure you don't realize it. But you are.

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'm pretty sure I know that. I'm pretty sure that's why I said it COULD be any of the things you listed, provided they are capable of creating evolution.

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.

Such a God wouldn't NEED to do anything. That point is moot.

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.

You don't believe what most people believe. I don't believe what most people believe. And yet, you insist that you and I ought to talk about the God that most people believe? But in reality, what you really mean is that we have to talk about the God in YOUR imagination and not mine. Because that's the only version you have prepared any arguments for. In other words, you're out of your depth and embarrassed about it. And you should be.

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.

See above.

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.

I think I'll be the judge of what is or is not a waste of my time.

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.

That's the premise of the OP.

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.

Wrong, it makes no sense to talk about your version of God when neither of us believes in it and yet both of us believe the theory of evolution is true.

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.

Thank you for finally admitting my argument is valid. Now, as to why it stops the argument from progressing, that is because you can't argue against it. Because its valid. See how that works? I stumped you.

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

False statistics are false. That is all.

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

Actually, I don't believe that.

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 said very clearly that I don't believe God created all of reality so I'm not sure why you inject that here. And I have to say, any distinction you make about any God almighty or otherwise is subject to the same exact gut feelings your are talking about here. You are just making up the parameters yourself and then acting shocked when they work out exactly as you designed them. And the whole time you don't even actually believe in this God you are making up! Why do you think that's sensible?

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

Actually, that's EXACTLY what you said. That there was only one valid argument so far in the thread. That means all the other ones are invalid, including mine. Hence the discussion we are having now. I assure you, exploring notions of the almighty God specifically to figure out why you don't have to believe in the very thing you are making up is a bit redundant and does not in any way resemble a quest for 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.

You're wrong. It is responsible for everything about this thread.

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.

Neither is, "I have a god in my imagination that's cruel and evil and bored and a freak". Which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Valjean]

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

The fossil and genetic records of continuous, incremental change seem pretty compelling.

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.

But they have. Speciation has been observed in the field and reproduced in the lab.

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.

Geneticists are finding such genes and processes all the time.

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.

I thought you understood the science?
It's not a blind process. It's called natural selection, sexual selection, &c, for a reason.

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

Why is it so hard to understand that a continual accumulation of small changes will eventually accumulate to produce large changes?
Natural, selective changes may be small and incremental, but they don't conveniently stop at the point a new "kind" might emerge.

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

But, as I said before, humans can and have done it, though the technology is in its infancy.
Nature conducts trillions of trials a day, but she doesn't normally publish the results in Nature.
Human trials are expensive, carefully planned and analysed. They are, therefore, few. Give it time.

 

[psychoslice]

Why would God create Evolution? .....because his not a magician that pulls things out of his hat like many think he does, that's what I think.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why would God create Evolution? .....because his not a magician that pulls things out of his hat like many think he does, that's what I think.

And also, we're not the ones to choose how God would do it.

 

[psychoslice]

And also, we're not the ones to choose how God would do it.

So true, too many strut around as if they know how god thinks, we don't even know if he does think, not in the way we think of thinking that is.

 

[Ouroboros]

So true, too many strut around as if they know how god thinks, we don't even know if he does think, not in the way we think of thinking that is.

Exactly.

Consciousness, though, mind, memory, experience... all those things are human, or we project human impressions of it, unto some thing/being that's beyond our understanding.

If God used big bang, black holes, evolution, etc, what's that to us besides to accept?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Evolution is compatible with the fine-tuned universe argument.

You need cosmic fine tuning, AND organic fine tuning...the odds are completely against both if you negate God...but as I understand it, you are a theistic that supports evolution...and I have no quarrel with you..however, I don't see how you can be a Christian theist and support evolution.

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.

If the "cat" kind evolved from a "non-cat" kind, then it would seem apparent that there would HAVE to be a clear-cut line. If the theory is that the cat kind is here now, but wasn't here yesterday, then there has to be a clear-cut line.

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.

All of those things (mutations, natural selection, etc) are limited. They don't change to an animal from one KIND to another kind. No one can deny that changes happen over time, but they are limited and do not extend to the macro level as evolutionists would like.

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.

So then you are confirming that a mindless and blind process is able to do something that intelligent humans with all our knowledge and technology isn't able to do. I will ask you directly, what is the genetically engineered process that will get a reptile to a bird?? What has to happen?

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.

You may be correct, because all that would demonstrate is that intelligence was needed...but here is the thing; I dont believe that it can be done, period, especially considering the fact that there is this thing called "consciousness" and I don't think consciousness is made up of matter...so the origin of consciousness has to transcend space and matter, but that is a different argument altogether.

Not only do you have to explain how life originated from non-life naturally, you also have to explain how consciousness originated from matter, NATURALLY, and I don't think either one can be explained..naturally. So you have your work cut out for you there, good sir.

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.

Good example, and I argue against against the evidence that is presented for the ToE.

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.

Some have called into question these dating methods though. And no fossil can be used as evidence of macroevolution, as no one can know whether any fossil was an evolutionary predecessor of an animal alive today, or whether the fossil was just a different kind of animal that went extinct. All speculation, no fact.

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.

They are subject to mutation? A cat is a cat. It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. All we see are cats producing cats...if you want to additionally believe that long ago when you conveniently wasn't here that these changes were occurring, then you had better be ready to provide evidence for it.

 

[Gordian Knot]

if you want to additionally believe that long ago when you conveniently wasn't here that these changes were occurring, then you had better be ready to provide evidence for it.

Back at ya. Provide the evidence for the myth of creation, which also happened long ago when you conveniently were not there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The fossil and genetic records of continuous, incremental change seem pretty compelling.

So you see a fossil in the dirt and you conclude that an animal of today evolved from the fossil that you see in the dirt? Talk about speculation. And what is genetic information supposed to prove? Common ancestry? No, common design.

But they have. Speciation has been observed in the field and reproduced in the lab.

I am not sure who gets to decide what is a specie and what isn't a specie. You can call a dog and a wolf different species, but it is clear they are the same kind of animal.

I thought you understood the science?
It's not a blind process. It's called natural selection, sexual selection, &c, for a reason.

Natural selection SELECTS. If you worked for the quality control department at a car manufacturing plant and your job was to keep all of the good parts and negate all of the bad parts, how long will it take for any of those cars to come out as an airplane?

Why is it so hard to understand that a continual accumulation of small changes will eventually accumulate to produce large changes?

I need evidence. We are supposed to be talking about science here, right? The very statement "small changes will eventually accumulate to produce large changes", that statement itself has never been observed, and the reason why is because the theory is that it takes so much time, so it will NEVER be observed by anyone.

You are telling me the theory, but I know what the theory is...right now I am asking for evidence OF the theory.

Natural, selective changes may be small and incremental, but they don't conveniently stop at the point a new "kind" might emerge.

But, as I said before, humans can and have done it, though the technology is in its infancy.
Nature conducts trillions of trials a day, but she doesn't normally publish the results in Nature.
Human trials are expensive, carefully planned and analysed. They are, therefore, few. Give it time.

Here is what I do know...if you wiped out all living organisms in the world and just left two dogs, a male and a female, and over "time", some changes will occur. You want to know what those changes would be? Well...over "time" the world will be populated with many different dogs. Given enough "time", you may have many different varieties of dogs...but they will all be DOGS. No whales would start popping out...no bears....no elephants...no snakes.....only DOGS.

If you think otherwise, then as I said previously, believers are not the only ones exercising faith, that is for darn sure.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you see a fossil in the dirt and you conclude that an animal of today evolved from the fossil that you see in the dirt? Talk about speculation. And what is genetic information supposed to prove? Common ancestry? No, common design.

I hope choosing intentional ignorance over research brings you some satisfaction.

It sure does not make for a compelling argument.

 

[Gordian Knot]

And I ask Call again,

Back at ya. Provide the evidence for the myth of creation, which also happened long ago when you conveniently were not there. Avoiding the question?

 

[Ouroboros]

if you want to additionally believe that long ago when you conveniently wasn't here that these changes were occurring, then you had better be ready to provide evidence for it.

Back at ya. Provide the evidence for the myth of creation, which also happened long ago when you conveniently were not there.

Right.

Or provide evidence that Moses wrote the story of Genesis according to what God told him, and that it wasn't just something he dreamt up.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Is it just me, or do the creationists never reply when they have their own 'logic' thrown back at them. Desiring the criticism against the other side, but not against your own side is cheating at best, dishonest at worst.

 

[Valjean]

So you see a fossil in the dirt and you conclude that an animal of today evolved from the fossil that you see in the dirt? Talk about speculation. And what is genetic information supposed to prove? Common ancestry? No, common design.

You get a fossil from a datable stratum. As more fossils are collected you can see the gradual change from one species to another.

Natural selection SELECTS. If you worked for the quality control department at a car manufacturing plant and your job was to keep all of the good parts and negate all of the bad parts, how long will it take for any of those cars to come out as an airplane?

LOL -- if the plant produced as much variation as biological reproduction does, I'll bet I could cobble together a plane pretty quickly.

I need evidence. We are supposed to be talking about science here, right? The very statement "small changes will eventually accumulate to produce large changes", that statement itself has never been observed, and the reason why is because the theory is that it takes so much time, so it will NEVER be observed by anyone.

In some situations the slow progress of evolution is punctuated by sudden leaps.

Scientists use bacteria and fruit flies for a reason. A rapid reproductive rate makes it quite possible to observe a thousand generations of change in a relatively short time.

You are telling me the theory, but I know what the theory is...right now I am asking for evidence OF the theory.

Browse: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Here is what I do know...if you wiped out all living organisms in the world and just left two dogs, a male and a female, and over "time", some changes will occur. You want to know what those changes would be? Well...over "time" the world will be populated with many different dogs. Given enough "time", you may have many different varieties of dogs...but they will all be DOGS. No whales would start popping out...no bears....no elephants...no snakes.....only DOGS.

Why do these changes you acknowledge confine themselves to size and shape? You acknowledge a wolf can be turned into a chihuahua or mastiff. Why would there not be similar changes in anatomy or physiology?
That a continuous series of small changes would eventually produce something significantly different from the prototype seems, to me, the most obvious common sense.
Magic poofing by an invisible, uncreated personage seems, to me, the more suspect claim.

 

[Valjean]

What's your take on ring species, Wild one?

 

[Parsimony]

You need cosmic fine tuning, AND organic fine tuning...the odds are completely against both if you negate God...but as I understand it, you are a theistic that supports evolution...and I have no quarrel with you..however, I don't see how you can be a Christian theist and support evolution.

Lots of people are, so I guess that's just something that you and I simply aren't going to see eye-to-eye on.

If the "cat" kind evolved from a "non-cat" kind, then it would seem apparent that there would HAVE to be a clear-cut line. If the theory is that the cat kind is here now, but wasn't here yesterday, then there has to be a clear-cut line.

I'll use an example that presumably you'll accept. Tame chihuahuas and wild wolves are recognizably different, right? There are definite characters that separate one from the other. Yet everyone agrees that chihuahuas resulted from the taming and selective breeding of wolves. Therefore, we know that wolves changed over time gradually to become chihuahuas and other breeds of dog. However, there was no one generation that anyone can point to and say that what was once a wolf has definitely become a chihuahua. No clear-cut line.

All of those things (mutations, natural selection, etc) are limited. They don't change to an animal from one KIND to another kind. No one can deny that changes happen over time, but they are limited and do not extend to the macro level as evolutionists would like.

In order for such limits to exist, there would have to be genes that can't mutate. No such mutation-proof genes have yet been found.

So then you are confirming that a mindless and blind process is able to do something that intelligent humans with all our knowledge and technology isn't able to do. I will ask you directly, what is the genetically engineered process that will get a reptile to a bird?? What has to happen?

Yeah, just like a mindless process can cause the Universe to expand yet intelligent humans with all our knowledge and technology can't do it. There's got to be a name for that fallacy. I see it used too much. Assuming that humans must be able to do something just because nature can do it.

If you want to turn a reptile into a bird using genetic engineering, you'd have to turn off/cut out a lot of genes and insert/turn on a lot of other genes. You and I know that doing such a thing would not represent Darwinian evolution in the slightest. There are no selection pressures, no reproduction, no mutation; it's all just direct human meddling with the genetic code. If genetic engineering turned a reptile into a bird no one, myself included, would count that as evidence for evolution. The process is not the same.

You may be correct, because all that would demonstrate is that intelligence was needed...but here is the thing; I dont believe that it can be done, period, especially considering the fact that there is this thing called "consciousness" and I don't think consciousness is made up of matter...so the origin of consciousness has to transcend space and matter, but that is a different argument altogether.

Not only do you have to explain how life originated from non-life naturally, you also have to explain how consciousness originated from matter, NATURALLY, and I don't think either one can be explained..naturally. So you have your work cut out for you there, good sir.

Seeing as how I haven't said anything about life coming from non-life or consciousness coming from non-consciousness I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

Good example, and I argue against against the evidence that is presented for the ToE.

Some have called into question these dating methods though. And no fossil can be used as evidence of macroevolution, as no one can know whether any fossil was an evolutionary predecessor of an animal alive today, or whether the fossil was just a different kind of animal that went extinct. All speculation, no fact.

I'd be plenty happy to answer any questions you may have about radiological dating techniques. Those dating techniques are very important because they establish eras where we see fossils of certain types of animals but not of others. There was an era where we find plenty of reptile fossils, but no mammals. A little later, we find plenty of reptile fossils, mammal-like reptile fossils, and still no mammals. Later still, we find reptiles and mammals. Unless God poofed mammal-like reptiles into existence after He already made reptiles, and then poofed mammals into existence after He made the mammal-like reptiles, then the most logical conclusions is that mammals evolved from mammal-like reptiles which evolved from reptiles. If all three types coexisted from the beginning, then we could not use this as evidence for evolution. However, dating techniques tell us that they did not all coexist from the beginning and instead came into existence one after the other in the order that evolution predicts that they would.

They are subject to mutation? A cat is a cat. It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. All we see are cats producing cats...if you want to additionally believe that long ago when you conveniently wasn't here that these changes were occurring, then you had better be ready to provide evidence for it.

If there are certain genes which make a cat a cat, and all of those genes are subject to mutation and selection, then it's only logical that with sufficient time all of those genes can change to make the distant descendants of modern cats something other than cats. If you change a bit of computer code one line at a time, you can eventually end up with something very different from the original program. If cats cannot become non-cats, then there must be some part of their DNA that simultaneously makes them cats and is not subject to change. Nothing of the sort has ever been found.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Back at ya. Provide the evidence for the myth of creation, which also happened long ago when you conveniently were not there.

I actually have arguments for my beliefs...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The argument from Design
4. The argument from consciousness
5. The argument based on the Historicity of the Resurrection (Jesus)

Take your pick