|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God created evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
jar writes:
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?
If we set as an a priori condition that God created evolution then the evidence says that no particular critter was a desired outcome...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taz writes: jar writes:
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? If we set as an a priori condition that God created evolution then the evidence says that no particular critter was a desired outcome... 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
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". 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Yes, this has been proposed before, it's called Theistic evolution Is there an opposing hypothesis that god is a product of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024