Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] evolution without God

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
I don't believe in evolution even with God. However, the only possible way evolution could happen as well as it supposedly did, would be under the conterol of God.

But anyway, I was getting to thinking the other day about people that believe that evolution occurred without God.

For those who don't know of God's existance and etc, and think that evolution and creation of the universe was a big boom and all that stuff, how does it make sense to them about how things are in just the right place and have a perfect fit where they are on earth and the galaxy.
For instance, by chance how would these things be placed in the right positons and areas by themselves:

-Having a livable planet
-Having this livable planet the right distance away from the sun
-This earth having a moon, which has(I think it was) effects on the ocean tide
-The existance of gravity
-Earth having a weather system that is benficial
-Earth having both plants and animals crucial to the survival of living things
-an atmosphere layer that protects from the sun
-Having an oxygen/nitrogen mixture to breath which fits right to what living, breathing things need
-Having a sun that is just the right size and power that is crucial to survival
-The planets rotating around the sun, instead of floating aimlessly around the solar system
______________
Now for the living people, animals and plants:

-Living things having all the organs they need to live
-People and animals having the right amount of limbs, and sense organs like eyes , nose, mouth, ears, etc
-People having a brain that supports a mind and is very complex
-all creatures having the internal systems they need to funtion: digestive, nervous, respitory, etc.

__________________________
NOTE: Everybody, feel free to add more to the stuff above.

I'll try and think of more later.
__________________________

I know the debates between evolution, creation, etc and stuff will never end because neither side can be proven, but I thought I do this anyway.

I know atheists are going to come now and try to debunk all my examples up there, even though you really can't the evidence only points to one thing.

...

Ok, atheists, you may know crap up the topic
 
Since all those possible universes where life cannot exist because of a minor change in certain constants have no life in them, they don't count.

So you seem to be a puddle who thinks that because it fits perfectly into whatever hole its in, that that hole was made for it.

-Having a livable planet
-Having this livable planet the right distance away from the sun
-This earth having a moon, which has(I think it was) effects on the ocean tide
-The existance of gravity
-Earth having a weather system that is benficial
-Earth having both plants and animals crucial to the survival of living things
-an atmosphere layer that protects from the sun
-Having an oxygen/nitrogen mixture to breath which fits right to what living, breathing things need
-Having a sun that is just the right size and power that is crucial to survival
-The planets rotating around the sun, instead of floating aimlessly around the solar system
Since all of these things are present under the current laws of physics, that doesn't prove the existence of a god.
The oxygen we breath(and we don't require nitrogen at all we can breath pure oxygen) is provided by plants, consumer carbon respirators evolved because they could take advantage of all that oxygen and plant life.
There are 100billion stars in our gallaxy, and many many many more billions of galaxies. The fact that one of them had exactly the right mix of features to support life in any form on at least one planet(with options on two more at further distances) is a statistical certainty and in no way surprising to me. In fact the right stars for our sort of life exist in great abundance.
And the fact that planets rotate around the sun is a result of the formation of suns out of stardust nebulae. The fact that you don't know this is enough for me to doubt your credentials as an astrophysicist and your ability to speak so definitively on the subject.

-Living things having all the organs they need to live
-People and animals having the right amount of limbs, and sense organs like eyes , nose, mouth, ears, etc
-People having a brain that supports a mind and is very complex
-all creatures having the internal systems they need to funtion: digestive, nervous, respitory, etc.
Natural selection (by random mutation and allele frequency change) explains these far better than "God made it happen."
You obviously don't realize that this is a very long process and those animals born, for whatever reason, without the benefit of internal organs, bodily functions, and the ability to sense the world around you, die out quickly if they die before they reproduce, which is one of the major points of natural selection.
Please tell me where you got your degrees in astronomy, astrophysics, biology, and mathematics, so I can have them firebombed and destroyed by the Moose Rebellion.
Here are a few books for you:
Probability One by Amir Aczel
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
Two fine books on subjects which you obviously do not understand.
 
I know the debates between evolution, creation, etc and stuff will never end because neither side can be proven, but I thought I do this anyway.
Oh and this is quite wrong. Evolution has been shown to happen, its been observed in the wild and in labratory settings.
Since there is no obvious hand of god moving the switches, it can be assumed that Natural selection is at work.
 
SyntaxVorlon said:
I know the debates between evolution, creation, etc and stuff will never end because neither side can be proven, but I thought I do this anyway.
Oh and this is quite wrong. Evolution has been shown to happen, its been observed in the wild and in labratory settings.
Since there is no obvious hand of god moving the switches, it can be assumed that Natural selection is at work.

You know what they say about "Assume" :o :wink:
 
I know, I rise to bait too easily.
Stop Trawling droop, its not nice.
 
-Having a livable planet
-Having this livable planet the right distance away from the sun
-This earth having a moon, which has(I think it was) effects on the ocean tide
-The existance of gravity
-Earth having a weather system that is benficial
-Earth having both plants and animals crucial to the survival of living things
-an atmosphere layer that protects from the sun
-Having an oxygen/nitrogen mixture to breath which fits right to what living, breathing things need
-Having a sun that is just the right size and power that is crucial to survival
-The planets rotating around the sun, instead of floating aimlessly around the solar system

Who says that any of these thing are necessary for life to exist?

I don't believe that God and the angels need any of the above!
 
Wow, I guess you guys also don't believe in Abiogenesis? Even though it was proved by the Miller/Urey experiment.
 
Well, let's talk about watching evolution in nature for a minute and what we have observed.

First of all, it is important to note that any logical person will be more than happy to admit that evolution occurs if they understand exactly what evolution is: change. Of course change happens and of course variation occurs. Case in point, I change or evolve as an individual as time goes on and when I reproduce, my offspring will be evolved from me. The sticking point is whether or not it is micro- or macro-evolution.

Microevolution involves the variation that naturally occurs within a single species and is observed all the time, has been since people have been writing, and makes this world of ours a beautiful, varied place. However, macroevolution is the change in a species which results in another species. This may or may not have been observed. But here's the sticker. We have never witnessed a population that has evolved to a point where they could reproduce with their ancestorial population - in effect nothing has ever evolved to the point where it went outside of its "kind."

And that is a major distinction to make - species and "kind." You see, in the scientific world today, we make distinctions between different animals using categorical heirarchies, of which, the lowest category is "species." However, since all living organisms are categorized in these groups by fallable humans, what you will find are mistakes in how they can be categorized. For example, did you know that a wolf and a dog are not in the same species though they can reproduce with each other? Interesting, no?

So I'll leave it at that... I think I have opened up enough can of worms for everyone to disect...

BL
 
I don't know if there is an official lists of species, but many scientists classify dogs and wolves in the same species, canis lupus, but different subspecies, with dogs being canis lupus familiaris. I think there are also differing definitions of species. Some define it as a population of organisms that can mate, others as those that do mate.
 
Right, and agree with everything you've said. That's exactly what I'm getting at is that the boundaries of species don't mean just a whole lot in my opinion. That makes it very hard to recognize macroevolution...

I believe the only way to determine a significant difference in organism populations, such as what we usually think of as species, is to determine whether or not the two populations can reproduce.

BL
 
No real evolution has never been observed, it supposedly takes millions of years, then nothing has been proven.

If someone told me to believe in evolution they have to:

-let me directly observe a man turn into an ape

-prove that God had no part of any creation

-show me directly an experiant which perfectly duplicates the big bang on a small scale

-Directly show me life come from nothing

*a few other things*

And then give me eleventy billion dollars. :tongue
___________

That Miller-Urey experiment did not actually produce life. Garbage it is.

Scientists assume that microevolution does equal macroevolution after millions of years correct? Someone explain to me why that can be correctly asumed?

You see, I don't possibly assume evolution to be true, proof is not real, evidence is poor, and many times circumstancial. Why should I take the words of people I don't even know, and believe them to be true? I've never seen what is claimed, why should I believe it?
___________

I don't consider evolution to be what it is called sometimes. Scientists and Biologists and Physisists claim that nothingness produced everything and that evolution is true.

Guess what? In 30 years they're all gonna say: "We were wrong about the whole big bang and evolution. We all screwed so we gonna go. kthanx"

___

Ultimate knowledge will never be derived for science. Things have happened, science and humans are defenseless and stupid in the big picture. :robot:
 
Droopfeather said:
No real evolution has never been observed, it supposedly takes millions of years, then nothing has been proven.

Evolution has been observed - at least micro evolution has. Not to mention that there is a lot of fossil evidence for some type of macro evolution.

Droopfeather said:
If someone told me to believe in evolution they have to:

-let me directly observe a man turn into an ape

I think thats observe ape turning into man, or man turning into another higher race.

Droopfeather said:
prove that God had no part of any creation

Prove that he did (scientifically)

Droopfeather said:
show me directly an experiant which perfectly duplicates the big bang on a small scale

-Directly show me life come from nothing

What would be the point of that???? Here why don't you conduct an experiment have a vacume box of absoulutly nothing in it and then pray to God to create something there...difficult I thought so :)

Droopfeather said:
Scientists assume that microevolution does equal macroevolution after millions of years correct? Someone explain to me why that can be correctly asumed?

The reason that micro to macro can be assumed is that the animal doesn't realize the change that happens in it. The change happens and stays until its a natural part of the animal. Once that part is natural there is no removing in. So as that happens we have another species developing.

Droopfeather said:
You see, I don't possibly assume evolution to be true, proof is not real, evidence is poor, and many times circumstancial. Why should I take the words of people I don't even know, and believe them to be true? I've never seen what is claimed, why should I believe it?

Yet you take the word of moses that God created the world, even though there is no evidence for that. There is not even circumstantial evidence.

Droopfeather said:
Guess what? In 30 years they're all gonna say: "We were wrong about the whole big bang and evolution. We all screwed so we gonna go. kthanx"

thats what people were saying after the Scopes Monkey Trial, yet here we are. Until there is more evidence or until a better theory comes out, evolution is here to stay.

Droopfeather said:
Ultimate knowledge will never be derived for science. Things have happened, science and humans are defenseless and stupid in the big picture.

I agree ultimate knowledge will never be derived by science, it is a combination of science/philosophy/religion that will get the big picture, taking the evidence from all three will give people a bigger clue.
 
Droopfeather said:
No real evolution has never been observed, it supposedly takes millions of years, then nothing has been proven.

If someone told me to believe in evolution they have to:

-let me directly observe a man turn into an ape

-prove that God had no part of any creation
1: Man is an ape in the first place so it would be tautological. And don't start with any of that "Well why are there still apes around if they evolved into humans." Several different branches of the ape family evolved from a common ancestor, including homonids.
2: In order to prove your god had any part in it what so ever you would have to prove your god exists. You have not done this. Do this now or stop talking about it.
-show me directly an experiant which perfectly duplicates the big bang on a small scale
They've been able to simulate up the conditions of the universe for short periods getting to around 10^-35 seconds after the beginning of the universe in Particle Accelerators. Where do you think all that information about quarks comes from?
-Directly show me life come from nothing
Life didn't come from nothing, the elements and factors necessary for its formation were present from the get go.
That Miller-Urey experiment did not actually produce life. Garbage it is.

Scientists assume that microevolution does equal macroevolution after millions of years correct? Someone explain to me why that can be correctly asumed?
M-U showed that the basic amino acids required for the building of proteins existed in the oceans of a young earth.
Scientists assume this because it explains the fossil, genetic, and physiological evidence best. Please show how the fossil and genetic record could be better explained.
<snip>
I don't consider evolution to be what it is called sometimes. Scientists and Biologists and Physisists claim that nothingness produced everything and that evolution is true.

Guess what? In 30 years they're all gonna say: "We were wrong about the whole big bang and evolution. We all screwed so we gonna go. kthanx"
Right after newtonian, einsteinian, leBroglian physics and genetics and fossil records are all found to be utterly wrong. Gravity doesn't exist, light changes its velocity as it sees fit, and pigs fly...F14s.
Ultimate knowledge will never be derived for science. Things have happened, science and humans are defenseless and stupid in the big picture.
And this is just you saying that the Truth is some sort of vague mystical thing that has more validity than all of human knowledge, but you can't give any details about.
 
Droopfeather said:
-Directly show me life come from nothing
The Miller/Urey experiment showed that the essential ingredients of life can generate without the help of supernatural beings.
 
The Miller/Urey experiment showed that the essential ingredients of life can generate without the help of supernatural beings.

Didn't they show that intelligent beings can't create life in ideal conditions?
 
No. That was not the conclusion of the experiment.
Basic amino acids can be formed in the froth that was early earth. A few of them chained together now and again, over a planet with 70% ocean this meant several hundred times a day. All that would be required to really start life was a simple replicating protien. And there are many of these.
 
Free said:
The Miller/Urey experiment showed that the essential ingredients of life can generate without the help of supernatural beings.

Didn't they show that intelligent beings can't create life in ideal conditions?
It would seem that way, but no. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey simply showed that buy replicating the conditions of an early, life-less Earth, life can actually appear, under the right conditions.
 
Back
Top