Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
42 online now:
Faith, PaulK (2 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,345 Year: 5,093/23,288 Month: 214/1,784 Week: 101/211 Day: 9/59 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God created evolution
Taz
Member (Idle past 1750 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 118 (572736)
08-07-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
08-07-2010 10:49 AM


Re: On the Bandar-Log
jar writes:

If we set as an a priori condition that God created evolution then the evidence says that no particular critter was a desired outcome...


Why? Why if god created evolution does man absolutely has to be the desired outcome? If we were to think of god starting off as a child creating the universe and evolution, why couldn't man have come about based solely on evolutionary advances?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-07-2010 10:49 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-07-2010 11:07 AM Taz has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32371
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 17 of 118 (572738)
08-07-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
08-07-2010 10:59 AM


Re: On the Bandar-Log
Taz writes:

jar writes:

If we set as an a priori condition that God created evolution then the evidence says that no particular critter was a desired outcome...


Why? Why if god created evolution does man absolutely has to be the desired outcome? If we were to think of god starting off as a child creating the universe and evolution, why couldn't man have come about based solely on evolutionary advances?

I don't know. If you read what I wrote I specifically said "then the evidence says that no particular critter was a desired outcome..." and you even quoted that.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 08-07-2010 10:59 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 08-07-2010 11:18 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1750 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 118 (572741)
08-07-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
08-07-2010 11:07 AM


Re: On the Bandar-Log
Sorry, trying to quit coffee on my days off. This is what I meant to quote.

you writes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with thinking that God created evolution comes up when we make the mistake of believing that some particular critter, man as an example, is a desired outcome.

Ok, nevermind. That's not what you were saying at all. My mistake.

For a couple seconds, I could have sworn you used a jedi mind trick on me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-07-2010 11:07 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3991
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 118 (572784)
08-07-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
08-07-2010 10:35 AM


The obvious answer to 'how's that?' follows thusly:

If the designer designed the organism it (the designer) must have either a: designed it to become extinct when the environment changed or 2: did not for see the environment changing and the organism becoming extinct.

We know things become extinct. So a designer must be continual designing new organisms to replace those that have become extinct.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that the designer is rubbish at designing things (apart from living fossils [score one for the designer]).

That fact that organism go extinct proves beyond all reasonable doubt that if there is a designer he is rubbish at design.

Rather than adding a designer into nature Occam's razor would suggest that a rubbish designer is an extraneous variable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 08-07-2010 10:35 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 08-07-2010 9:21 PM Larni has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5177
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 20 of 118 (572837)
08-07-2010 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
08-07-2010 4:04 PM


Larni writes:

Therefore the logical conclusion is that the designer is rubbish at designing things (apart from living fossils [score one for the designer]).

That fact that organism go extinct proves beyond all reasonable doubt that if there is a designer he is rubbish at design.

No doubt you could have done better. It seems to me that this universe and the life on this planet is a pretty incredible design. Look at the structure of just a basic cell, let alone your whole body and mind, and you have the incredible hubris to say that any designer is rubbish at design because some species became extinct.

You are only stating opinion. There is no evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 08-07-2010 4:04 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 08-07-2010 9:39 PM GDR has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3991
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 21 of 118 (572841)
08-07-2010 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
08-07-2010 9:21 PM


You commit the fallacy of ignorance. The universe is indeed amazing. But science tells us how it works. To ignore the words god has written in the rocks and scaler fields of reality (which we can measure) is surely a sin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 08-07-2010 9:21 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 12:58 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5177
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 22 of 118 (572855)
08-08-2010 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Larni
08-07-2010 9:39 PM


Larni writes:

You commit the fallacy of ignorance. The universe is indeed amazing. But science tells us how it works. To ignore the words god has written in the rocks and scaler fields of reality (which we can measure) is surely a sin?

I'm not questioning the fact of evolution I'm just questioning the fact that you have any evidence that it isn't evolution by design.

Science, like you say, tells us how it works, it doesn't tell us why it works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 08-07-2010 9:39 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3400 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 23 of 118 (572877)
08-08-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by GDR
08-06-2010 8:03 PM


JUC writes:
Evolution through natural selection is an unguided process. All the evidence points to this.

GDR writes:
What evidence is that?

Maybe this is more of a logical than empirical answer, but the fact that it is a very gradual process for one thing. What would be the point of creating species "A" and then gradually evolving it to "B", "C", "D", etc in order to get to the species you want called "Z"- billions of years later? If you want to create species "Z", why not just start with that species?

If evolution were guided, it would mean that some intelligent entity was deliberately creating the necessary mutations. The very gradual rate of mutations - and selection of the same - does not imply a designer. Also, most mutations do not lead to any advantage. A designer wouldn't waste time on non-advantageous mutations. And a designer would not only dramatically increase the mutation rate, it would introduce the same mutations into each individual of the same generation. Certainly it would do this once it found an advantageous mutation. By normally having a unique mutation in a single individual, you are dramatically reducing the chances of that mutation surviving and being selected to the extent that it finds its way into the general population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 08-06-2010 8:03 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 10:26 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5177
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 24 of 118 (572880)
08-08-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-08-2010 10:08 AM


JUC writes:

Maybe this is more of a logical than empirical answer, but the fact that it is a very gradual process for one thing. What would be the point of creating species "A" and then gradually evolving it to "B", "C", "D", etc in order to get to the species you want called "Z"- billions of years later? If you want to create species "Z", why not just start with that species?

If evolution were guided, it would mean that some intelligent entity was deliberately creating the necessary mutations. The very gradual rate of mutations - and selection of the same - does not imply a designer. Also, most mutations do not lead to any advantage. A designer wouldn't waste time on non-advantageous mutations. And a designer would not only dramatically increase the mutation rate, it would introduce the same mutations into each individual of the same generation. Certainly it would do this once it found an advantageous mutation. By normally having a unique mutation in a single individual, you are dramatically reducing the chances of that mutation surviving and being selected to the extent that it finds its way into the general population.

My point was that Larni stated that the evidence points to an unguided process. Whenever a theist on this forum makes a statement like that he/she is immediately swarmed. In this case the board was not so strangely silent.

From a logical point of view if the process was unguided I would think that the evolutionary process would be consistent instead of the uneven pattern we see in the Cambrian period. That along with the fact there is something instead of nothing, and that sentient beings emerged from that inanimate something leads me to logically believe in an external intelligence.

People seem to assume that God is omnipotent and can design any way He chooses. The Bible doesn't say that. Actually if anything the Bible seems to indicate that God had to work within certain parameters. He bargained with various individuals throughout the Bible and as far as creation itself is concerned the creation stories in Genesis itself tell of a process over time. I would think that if God could create without any restrictions, He would have instantly created a universe complete with sentient beings.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-08-2010 10:08 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 10:31 AM GDR has responded
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 08-08-2010 1:08 PM GDR has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32371
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 25 of 118 (572882)
08-08-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
08-08-2010 10:26 AM


GDR writes:

From a logical point of view if the process was unguided I would think that the evolutionary process would be consistent instead of the uneven pattern we see in the Cambrian period.

What uneven pattern?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 10:26 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 10:40 AM jar has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5177
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 26 of 118 (572883)
08-08-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
08-08-2010 10:31 AM


jar writes:

What uneven pattern?


You can read about it here.

Cambrian Explosion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 10:31 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 10:49 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32371
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 27 of 118 (572884)
08-08-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
08-08-2010 10:40 AM


Did you read all of that?

Several issues.

First, we are finding more and more samples of pre-Cambrian life and as we find more, the evidence shows that the transition took place over vastly longer periods of time, that there really was not an explosion at all.

Second, there are limited areas where we have access today to Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian surfaces.

Third, as we move further back in time we are dealing with smaller and smaller critters and ones that left us few fossils. It does appear though from the most recent evidence bilateral critters evolved well before the Cambrian.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 10:40 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18019
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 28 of 118 (572904)
08-08-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
08-08-2010 10:26 AM


GDR writes:

My point was that Larni stated that the evidence points to an unguided process. Whenever a theist on this forum makes a statement like that he/she is immediately swarmed. In this case the board was not so strangely silent.


The thing is, we do have evidence of "failed" designs - i.e. extinctions. Theists don't have evidence for their claims. You can complain about the interptretation of the evidence - creationists love to do that - but there is evidence of "failure".

The most likely explanation for the extinctions seems to be that the design "didn't work" in the given environment - i.e. it failed. The most likely explanation is what science always goes for and "God coulda woulda shoulda...." doesn't qualify.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 10:26 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 08-08-2010 7:29 PM ringo has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member
Posts: 1813
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 29 of 118 (572905)
08-08-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
08-05-2010 8:23 AM



Yes, this has been proposed before, it's called Theistic evolution

Is there an opposing hypothesis that god is a product of evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 8:23 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 2:22 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 08-09-2010 3:57 AM Dogmafood has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32371
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 30 of 118 (572912)
08-08-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dogmafood
08-08-2010 1:21 PM


It is certain that the Gods and gods described in many religious texts evolve over time. This is particularly true in the three Judaic faiths.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dogmafood, posted 08-08-2010 1:21 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020